Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Archaeopteryx and Dino-Bird Evolution
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 91 of 200 (308811)
05-03-2006 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Hyroglyphx
05-03-2006 12:48 PM


Re: Archaeoraptor and Archaeopteryx
Avian body temperature is vastly different from saurians
What is the typical body temperature of a saurian? When did you measure it? Where? Axillary, rectal, or oral?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-03-2006 12:48 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 92 of 200 (308814)
05-03-2006 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by RickJB
05-03-2006 3:30 PM


quote:
Revision? Absolutely! Science is always open to revisions (or revolutions).
Unlike certain religious dogmas that I can think of, which are not open to revision no matter how contrary the evidence is, or how illogical they become.

"Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
-- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by RickJB, posted 05-03-2006 3:30 PM RickJB has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 93 of 200 (308815)
05-03-2006 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by EZscience
05-03-2006 1:41 PM


Re: What about the hoatzin ?
Coincidence?
Erm, yeah. Or rather, convergence. Only the chicks have wing claws. It's a defense mechanism. Hoatzin live in riverside/swamp trees and they're pretty lousy fliers. When threatened, chicks dive into the water to escape, then use the wing claws to climb back up. The only other significant trait "shared" with Archy is a reduced breastbone. This adaptation is a trait reduction - flight sacrificed (apparently) to accommodate a really large digestive pouch that functions exactly like a rumen (foregut fermentation). One of the only obligate folivores.
I know a lot of people have compared Archy and the Hoatzin, but "sharing many features" may be stretching it a bit. Us Evilutionists need to be more careful than most when it comes to streatching a point with the creos.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by EZscience, posted 05-03-2006 1:41 PM EZscience has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by EZscience, posted 05-03-2006 4:17 PM Quetzal has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 94 of 200 (308816)
05-03-2006 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by crashfrog
05-03-2006 3:19 PM


You confuse very well-known theories and splice conjecture into it
Let me repost it: I said,
Maybe I need to clarify any misgivings or misconceptions regarding evolution. In evolution, there are answers to two very different questions. First, evolutionary theory tells us how a certain amount of diversity can develop in already extant, complex life forms. For example, if a small, contingent of birds migrate to an isolated island, a combination of inbreeding, mutation, and natural selection may cause these birds to develop distinct features, not seen in the ancestral population. When viewing the theory in this limited sense, evolution is uncontroversial.
This is microevolution, and that is small adaptations which are so obvious. In fact, DNA have so many possible variables as to allow for little, to no chance of carbon copies. The reason why you don't look exactly like your parents is because 1. You have anywhere from 50% of their gentic code, encoded in you. 2. Both you parents have mass quantities of recessive traits. In turn, you too have many recessive traits. This is so we all aren't carbon copies of one another. So, when a group of birds (or whatever organism) becomes isolated, a combination of inbreeding, or mutations can affect any given specie and cause it to exaggerate some of these recessive qualities. What we see is a new specie, but not an entirely new Order which is exactly what Neo-Darwinism claims. I'll give you a for-instance: Darwin's notation on Finches. That was some awesome observations of microevolution at work. However, he came to a very bad conclusion when he started to claim that everything is basically related. That assertion simply isn't supported by much of anything.
This is where many evolutionists keep us in the dark. We know that small, nominal changes occur. That's what made the Pygmys short and the Guanches tall. This is absolutely, 100%, normal biological function. But science fiction creeps in when we are expected to believe that a unicellular organism has the compulsion to evolve all the way up to an evolutionist. That is macroevolution, and it has never, ever been observed, either walking the earth today or in the strata layer. This is what I contend, as well as many creationists, and even some secular scientists. For how complex the DNA is, it eventually hits a brick wall. There is an inviolate gulf fixed between certain organisms so that it is inconceivable that they are related in any way.
Therefore, horses, dogs, or hominids simply doesn't cut it in proving macroevolution. It just doesn't. And if it did, we'd have a plethora of legitimate, tangible evidence. As it is, we're left with theories like 'punctuated equilibrium' to make excuses for why there is no evidence, or why we shouldn't expect to find any. Well, I'm sorry, but that is laughable, not because it isn't plausible, but because its based totally and completely on faith, consequently, the very same faith they ridicule creationists with.
Do you understand the difference between micro and macro? BTW, 'transspecific evolution' is just another name for macroevolution. So no, your Equine premise fails to meet the criteria.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by crashfrog, posted 05-03-2006 3:19 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Chiroptera, posted 05-03-2006 4:14 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 97 by Coragyps, posted 05-03-2006 4:29 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 99 by Nuggin, posted 05-03-2006 4:37 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 102 by crashfrog, posted 05-03-2006 4:57 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 95 of 200 (308818)
05-03-2006 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Hyroglyphx
05-03-2006 4:07 PM


Re: You confuse very well-known theories and splice conjecture into it
quote:
That is macroevolution, and it has never, ever been observed, either walking the earth today or in the strata layer.
Actually, it is observed in the hierarchical classification of species, the confirmation of the standard classification in molecular studies, in the existence of many transitional species in the fossil record, in the existence of vestigial organs, in the existence of atavisms and retroviral insertions, and on and on.
As I have stated before, there is strong evidence for common descent. That you refuse to acknowledge the evidence is not going to make it go away.

"Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
-- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-03-2006 4:07 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-03-2006 4:40 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
EZscience
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 96 of 200 (308819)
05-03-2006 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Quetzal
05-03-2006 3:59 PM


Re: What about the hoatzin ?
I should have guessed that would draw a response from you Birdman.
Thanks for the clarification !

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Quetzal, posted 05-03-2006 3:59 PM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Quetzal, posted 05-03-2006 5:42 PM EZscience has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 97 of 200 (308824)
05-03-2006 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Hyroglyphx
05-03-2006 4:07 PM


Re: You confuse very well-known theories and splice conjecture into it
There is an inviolate gulf fixed between certain organisms so that it is inconceivable that they are related in any way.
And there is a bald-faced assertion that you cannot support with anything other than further bald-faced assertions. And something being "inconceivable" to nemesis_juggernaut may indicate more about that individual's ability to "think of six impossible things before breakfast" than about biological reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-03-2006 4:07 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Chiroptera, posted 05-03-2006 4:35 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 98 of 200 (308829)
05-03-2006 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Coragyps
05-03-2006 4:29 PM


quote:
And there is a bald-faced assertion that you cannot support with anything other than further bald-faced assertions.
Yes, "nemesis_juggernaught" is turning out to be not much of a nemesis, and certainly no juggernaught!

"Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
-- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Coragyps, posted 05-03-2006 4:29 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 99 of 200 (308832)
05-03-2006 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Hyroglyphx
05-03-2006 4:07 PM


Re: You confuse very well-known theories and splice conjecture into it
Let me see if I've got your position down. And, believe me, you are far from the first to propose it here.
This is microevolution, and that is small adaptations which are so obvious.
So you believe in Microevolution. But you don't believe in macroevolution...
Okay, let's use an example from the world of math.
You understand that 1+1=2, the 2+1=3, and that 3+1=4. But in your world the number 1 and the number 4 are far too different to "both be numbers".
Small changes add up over time. You can't buy into Micro and disbelieve macro.
Pick a side.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-03-2006 4:07 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-03-2006 4:51 PM Nuggin has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 100 of 200 (308833)
05-03-2006 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Chiroptera
05-03-2006 4:14 PM


Re: You confuse very well-known theories and splice conjecture into it
quote:
Actually, it is observed in the hierarchical classification of species, the confirmation of the standard classification in molecular studies, in the existence of many transitional species in the fossil record, in the existence of vestigial organs, in the existence of atavisms and retroviral insertions, and on and on.
As I have stated before, there is strong evidence for common descent. That you refuse to acknowledge the evidence is not going to make it go away.
First of all, Darwin thought of many things that simply aren't true, such as, diet, environment, and exercise being responsible for evolutionary change because evolution requires evolutionary advances to be inherited. That obviously isn't the case. Wouldn't that be nice though? Your Dad worked out like a madman and you inherit all his hard work. .
There is no atavistic feature that exists. As well, there is no vestige that doesn't serve some sort of function. And retroviral resistance is woefully inept to explain itself.
Alright, viruses that mutate shouldn't shock in the least. That's practically their sole function. Is that really evolution? Think about it. Its a case of Natrual Selection, not evolution. Let's use pesticides and cockroaches as a way to understand what actually happens. Let's say we have 100 roaches. We call the Orkin man and gets over here lickety-split and sprays them all. 98 roaches die. The Orkin man did it again. But wait, there are still 2 left. What happened? The Orkin man says, "Hmmmm, maybe they evolved."
What are the problems with the scenario? First, if they evolved a resistance, it completely undermines the need for millions of years of time for evolution, in which case, why aren't we seeing evolution before our eyes all the time? Would we say that the roach 'evolved' upon being sprayed? Obviously not, because why did the other 98 die? So what actually happened? The fact of the matter is, we should thank Natural Selection. For whatever reason, the two roaches, one male and one female, we're either previously introduced to the pesticide and so developed an immunity, just like being around cat dander can cause you to develop an allergy. Or, they were born with a certain combination of genes that allowed them to be stronger and more resistant to the pesticide. Now, the 2 living roaches reproduce and create baby roaches that also are resistant......... That isn't evolution, that is simple survival via natural selection.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Chiroptera, posted 05-03-2006 4:14 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by crashfrog, posted 05-03-2006 5:02 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 106 by Chiroptera, posted 05-03-2006 5:46 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 109 by Chiroptera, posted 05-03-2006 6:26 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 101 of 200 (308836)
05-03-2006 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Nuggin
05-03-2006 4:37 PM


Re: You confuse very well-known theories and splice conjecture into it
quote:
Let me see if I've got your position down. And, believe me, you are far from the first to propose it here.
Really? I was beginning to think I was the only ID'ist in here. I'm used to that though.
quote:
You understand that 1+1=2, the 2+1=3, and that 3+1=4. But in your world the number 1 and the number 4 are far too different to "both be numbers".
Small changes add up over time. You can't buy into Micro and disbelieve macro.
I understand your point, however, it has nothing to do with anything revealed by science. The stark, undeniable fact is that macroevolutionary theory is as impotent as Bob Dole. There isn't much to go by. You say, 'we can't have micro without macro.' In this way, you agree with Earnst Mayr.
“Transspecific evolution is nothing but an extrapolation and magnification of the events that take place within a population.” Earnst Mayr
Is that really what's going on? If so, where is the overwhelming evidence that would definatley present itself if it were?
“Although apes and man admittedly have much in common, biochemically, anatomically and physiologically, they are at the same time a world apart. We cannot accept that the genes for producing great works of art or literature or music, or developing skills in higher mathematics emerged from some chance mutations of monkey genes long ahead of their having any conceivable relevance for survival in a Darwinian sense . If the Earth were sealed off from all sources of external genes: bugs could replicate till doomsday, but they would still be bugs: and monkey colonies would also reproduce but only to produce more monkeys. The Earth would be a dull place indeed.” -Chandra Wickramasinghe
“Micromutations do occur, but the fact that these alone account for evolutionary change is a metaphysical theory. It is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to false theory. But that is what happened in biology . I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked as the greatest deceit in the history of science. When this happens many people will pose the question: How did this ever happen” -Dr. Soren Lovtrup
Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : typo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Nuggin, posted 05-03-2006 4:37 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Nuggin, posted 05-03-2006 6:14 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 102 of 200 (308838)
05-03-2006 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Hyroglyphx
05-03-2006 4:07 PM


Re: You confuse very well-known theories and splice conjecture into it
So, when a group of birds (or whatever organism) becomes isolated, a combination of inbreeding, or mutations can affect any given specie and cause it to exaggerate some of these recessive qualities.
We've performed experiments that prove that random mutation is able to give rise to new traits that weren't there before, or weren't present in a recessive form. We performed these experiments on organisms that have haploid genetics and therefore have no such thing as recessive traits. In those populations, under appropriate conditions, new traits are observed anyway. Because these organisms can have no recessive traits, we know that mutation is the source of the new observations.
But science fiction creeps in when we are expected to believe that a unicellular organism has the compulsion to evolve all the way up to an evolutionist.
This is perhaps your deepest mistake. Individual organisms do not evolve, so talk about "compulsions" is meaningless. Populations evolve, and populations are only under the "compulsion" to be shaped by their environment. And we know that environments exist that will shape unicellular organisms into multicellular ones. So what you term "science fiction", in the best tradition of science fiction, has become science fact. Unicellular life gave rise to complex multicellular life. We've seen it happen in experiments.
For how complex the DNA is, it eventually hits a brick wall.
There's absolutely no evidence of this. No experiment has ever shown a limit to the capacity of DNA to mutate into new sequences.
Do you understand the difference between micro and macro?
I do. You don't, though.
BTW, 'transspecific evolution' is just another name for macroevolution. So no, your Equine premise fails to meet the criteria.
Circular reasoning. If you define macroevolution as the development of one species from another - which no serious creationist does, by the way; you're way out on your own here, just to warn you - then you're forced to concede that macroevolution has been observed to happen, because we've seen old species give rise to new ones in countless trials and experiments. If you insist on defining macroevolution in that way, then you're forced to admit that it occurs. I suggest you find a new way to define it, as all the other creationists had to do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-03-2006 4:07 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 103 of 200 (308840)
05-03-2006 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Hyroglyphx
05-03-2006 4:40 PM


Re: You confuse very well-known theories and splice conjecture into it
First of all, Darwin thought of many things that simply aren't true, such as, diet, environment, and exercise being responsible for evolutionary change because evolution requires evolutionary advances to be inherited. That obviously isn't the case. Wouldn't that be nice though? Your Dad worked out like a madman and you inherit all his hard work.
Darwin never held this view. In fact Darwin's work was a specific rebuttal of this form of "evolution", most prominently championed by Lamarck (and largely associated with his name.)
What are the problems with the scenario?
Besides your phenominal misunderstanding of the processes of evolution?
Or, they were born with a certain combination of genes that allowed them to be stronger and more resistant to the pesticide.
Right. And what was the source of those unique genes? Mutation.
Mutation, combined with natural selection, is evolution. The Orkin man would be mistaken to point to those two roaches as having evolved, you're correct.
That's because individuals don't evolve. Populations do. And the population of roaches evolved - it evolved resistance to pesticide.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-03-2006 4:40 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Modulous, posted 05-03-2006 5:43 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 104 of 200 (308849)
05-03-2006 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by EZscience
05-03-2006 4:17 PM


Re: What about the hoatzin ?
No prob. It actually IS a good argument for homology (the claws) and adaptive reduction (the sternum). We've got a family group (~flock) of hoatzin living on a river island in the reserve I'm working with on the Rio Napo. I love telling people, "If you squint your eyes a bit, you can briefly glimpse 100 million years ago the ancestors of the ancestors of modern birds." When I'm talking to folks in the field, I allow myself a bit of fancy now and then. When we're talking to our resident carpet-chewers, however, we have to be a bit more careful.
I owe THAT lesson to our very own Wounded King. And a painful lesson it was...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by EZscience, posted 05-03-2006 4:17 PM EZscience has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 105 of 200 (308850)
05-03-2006 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by crashfrog
05-03-2006 5:02 PM


curious note in favour of Lamarck
Darwin never held this view. In fact Darwin's work was a specific rebuttal of this form of "evolution", most prominently championed by Lamarck (and largely associated with his name.)
Amusingly,
quote:
First of all, Darwin thought of many things that simply aren't true, such as, diet, environment, and exercise being responsible for evolutionary change
This view, regardless on who held it, turns out to have some basis in fact. Epigentics has shown that environmental factors can result in changes in offspring and grand-offspring and possibly beyond. I saw a paper that proposed that epigenetics might be behind brightly coloured warning signals of poisonous animals.
This really became interesting when it was finally shown that epigenitic effects apply to humans. A village which had several famines had smaller children during those periods (a woman's hips are smaller during famine, so she has to be able to pass a message to the embryo to not grow too much).
Not really on topic, but I thought it might be of suitable interest to the readers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by crashfrog, posted 05-03-2006 5:02 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024