Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Archaeopteryx and Dino-Bird Evolution
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 106 of 200 (308852)
05-03-2006 5:46 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
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 because evolution requires evolutionary advances to be inherited.
Actually, all Darwin required was that (1) physical characteristics are inherited, (2) that new characteristics can arise, and (3) that some new characteristics will give to the individuals that possess them an advantage in surviving and leaving behind offspring. All of these things have been observed. The exact mechanisms for the inheritence are unimportant.
This is getting far from the topic of archaeopteryx; maybe I will start a new thread concerning evolution in general and invite you to participate.
-
quote:
As well, there is no vestige that doesn't serve some sort of function.
The human appendix serves no known function. At any rate it is not necessary that there be no function, just that the organ no longer serves its original function. (Jaws, by the way, are vestigial gills.)
This, too, is getting far off the topic of archaeopteryx. You are welcome to start a new thread on vestigial organs if you wish.
-
quote:
Alright, viruses that mutate shouldn't shock in the least.
This is off the topic of archaeopteryx, as well as irrelevant to what I said in my previous post.

"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 100 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-03-2006 4:40 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-03-2006 10:06 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 107 of 200 (308853)
05-03-2006 5:57 PM


General purpose topic drift alert
It seems that the topic title "Archaeopteryx and Dino-Bird Evolution" pretty well defines the topic theme. All messages should have some pretty direct connection to that theme. Messages that do not should find a better home elsewhere.
Adminnemooseus
Added by edit: Posted this message prior to seeing message 106. Perhaps this message is redundant to that message 106.
This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 05-03-2006 06:00 PM

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, Assistance w/ Forum Formatting, Proposed New (Great Debate) Topics, Official Invitations to Online Chat@EvC

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


Message 108 of 200 (308857)
05-03-2006 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Hyroglyphx
05-03-2006 4:51 PM


Re: You confuse very well-known theories and splice conjecture into it
Is that really what's going on? If so, where is the overwhelming evidence that would definatley present itself if it were?
Umm, every single fossil... every single living thing on the planet... that's a lot of evidence.
Or are you asking for evidence which is neither fossil nor living?
Could you give us an example of exactly what it is you are looking for?
What, for you, would be proof of macro-evolution? Be realistic - not, "I want to see a pegasus."
Do you want more primative forms than Archie? Maybe more advanced forms? Would you be satified with dino-like lizard with downy feathers and no flight feather? Would you be satified with a flying, "modern" bird with a claw at the tip of its wing?
Before you jump up and down and proclaim that there is no evidence, pony up and explain exactly what you want to see.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-03-2006 4:51 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-03-2006 10:29 PM Nuggin has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 109 of 200 (308865)
05-03-2006 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Hyroglyphx
05-03-2006 4:40 PM


Invitation to another thread.
Yo, nemesis,
you state:
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 because evolution requires evolutionary advances to be inherited.
I replied to it in a subsequent post, but it would be off topic to continue in that vein. So I invite you to new thread to discuss the generalities of the theory of evolution.

"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 100 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-03-2006 4:40 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 110 of 200 (308920)
05-03-2006 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Chiroptera
05-03-2006 5:46 PM


Atavisms
quote:
Actually, all Darwin required was that (1) physical characteristics are inherited, (2) that new characteristics can arise, and (3) that some new characteristics will give to the individuals that possess them an advantage in surviving and leaving behind offspring. All of these things have been observed. The exact mechanisms for the inheritence are unimportant.
Physical characteristics are inherited, however, if your father worked out every day of his life before you were born, you are not going to come out muscular. He might have had a predisposition towards being muscular, and you may or may not inherit that. But the belief that working out affects your children in utero is wholly unfactual. This is the same thing for any person who flaps their arms in hopes of flying their whole life, that might somehow 'evolve' wings. This is what macroevolution is essentially claiming. Think about Archaeopteryx being the missing link. That would mean that he develpoed all of these wonderful contrivances in one felled swoop or that he evolved slowly with stump-like appendages. But what conceivable relevance do nubs have while he was in transitional limbo? What prompted the alleges changes to occur at all?
quote:
This is getting far from the topic of archaeopteryx; maybe I will start a new thread concerning evolution in general and invite you to participate.
Sure, that'd be fine with me.
quote:
The human appendix serves no known function. At any rate it is not necessary that there be no function, just that the organ no longer serves its original function.
For face value, I'd agree with you. I have had my appendix removed and since then, I haven't appeared to suffer any sort of adverse reaction because of it. We've all heard the proposition of appendices being apart of evolutionary function because they serve alot of useful purpose in lower animals to break down tough fibre, such as bark. The problem it presents in the standard Darwinian model is that it doesn't explain why appendices are present in certain mammals, and not others. As well, speaking from a naturalistic point of view, the prevailing wisdom cannot account for why it is first present in some marsupial animals like the wombat, but absent in all the mammals between the wombat and man.
Some doctors theorize that its functionality lies with its ability in lymphnode function. This small organ might principally lie in its contributions to the digestive and lymphatic systems, but this is purely speculative at this point. In any case, if this is the crown jewel for Darwinian macroevolution, then you'll have to excuse me for not starting a slow clap over it.
quote:
(Jaws, by the way, are vestigial gills.)
Jaws are vestigial gills???? Did I understand that correctly?
quote:
This is off the topic of archaeopteryx, as well as irrelevant to what I said in my previous post.
I'm just following the dialogue wherever it may lead.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Chiroptera, posted 05-03-2006 5:46 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by crashfrog, posted 05-03-2006 10:18 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 113 by Coragyps, posted 05-03-2006 10:33 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 111 of 200 (308923)
05-03-2006 10:18 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Hyroglyphx
05-03-2006 10:06 PM


Re: Atavisms
That would mean that he develpoed all of these wonderful contrivances in one felled swoop or that he evolved slowly with stump-like appendages.
What leads you to believe that the transitional appendage between "leg" and "wing" is "stump"?
I mean, did that make sense when you typed it, or what? I just don't follow.
The problem it presents in the standard Darwinian model is that it doesn't explain why appendices are present in certain mammals, and not others. As well, speaking from a naturalistic point of view, the prevailing wisdom cannot account for why it is first present in some marsupial animals like the wombat, but absent in all the mammals between the wombat and man.
Do you have a citation for this? My own brief research seems to confirm what I initally suspected - you're completely wrong. From what I can tell, appendectal vermiform processes are present in lieu of the cecum of all mammals who don't have a cellulose-heavy diet.
You're entitled to your opinion, of course; not to your own facts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-03-2006 10:06 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 112 of 200 (308925)
05-03-2006 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Nuggin
05-03-2006 6:14 PM


Re: You confuse very well-known theories and splice conjecture into it
quote:
Umm, every single fossil... every single living thing on the planet... that's a lot of evidence.
Every single fossil shows evidence of evolution? If that were the case, then why has prominent evolutionists made claims such as:
“Not one change into another is on record . we cannot prove that a single species has been changed.” -Charles Darwin
110 years later: “The absence of fossil evidence has been a persistent problem for evolution.”-Dr. Steven J. Gould
The reason that there aren't any transitional forms is the reason why punctuated equilibrium had to be invented. Its a theory that attempts to cover up another theory. They are making excuses for other excuses. In respect to this, I then direct you to heed the wise words of Fred Hoyle:
“Be suspicious of a theory if more and more hypothesis are needed to support it.”
quote:
Or are you asking for evidence which is neither fossil nor living?
I was asking for either, not neither. Just show us something.
quote:
Could you give us an example of exactly what it is you are looking for?
That be kind of hard to describe, being that it doesn't exist. But if I had to conceptualize it, it would all be dependent on the organism.
quote:
What, for you, would be proof of macro-evolution? Be realistic - not, "I want to see a pegasus."
Realistically, it would have to be recognizable enough to know that it was directly related another specie, but that it now fits into a new genera or order. A new specie is kind of silly because if that didn't happen we'd all be carbon copies of one another. Let me assure you, I'm not expecting Pegasus.
quote:
Do you want more primative forms than Archie? Maybe more advanced forms? Would you be satified with dino-like lizard with downy feathers and no flight feather? Would you be satified with a flying, "modern" bird with a claw at the tip of its wing?
The thing is, I'm of the belief that if we are evolving in any way, we are physically devolving. So, any evolutionary advancement into greater and more highly intelligent creatures would be fantastic as far as proof is concerned.
Maybe I need to give you a little background. I used to be an evolutionist. I left it after some serious investigation. If I was forced to label myself anything, I would label myself a creationist, but perhaps you might be more interested in knowing that I just want the truth, whatever it may be. In my best judgement, macroevolution has been falsified. That's where I'm at in my life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Nuggin, posted 05-03-2006 6:14 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Nuggin, posted 05-03-2006 11:40 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 117 by Parasomnium, posted 05-04-2006 6:29 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

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


Message 113 of 200 (308927)
05-03-2006 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Hyroglyphx
05-03-2006 10:06 PM


Re: Atavisms
Some doctors theorize that its functionality lies with its ability in lymphnode function.
A pretty durn minor functionality, apparently, since the human appendix has about as many "Peyer's patches" per square centimeter as any of the adjacent small intestine does. But not very many square centimeters....
but absent in all the mammals between the wombat and man.
Nope.
A vermiform appendix is not unique to humans. It is found in all the hominoid apes, including humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, and gibbons, and it exists to varying degrees in several species of New World and Old World monkeys.
And see Vestigiality of the human appendix for some more detail on appendicular vestigiality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-03-2006 10:06 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Quetzal, posted 05-03-2006 11:38 PM Coragyps has not replied
 Message 116 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-04-2006 12:24 AM Coragyps has replied

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


Message 114 of 200 (308947)
05-03-2006 11:38 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Coragyps
05-03-2006 10:33 PM


Re: Atavisms
You can't win Coragyps. He's got the Revised Quote Book and is already on the "H"'s.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Coragyps, posted 05-03-2006 10:33 PM Coragyps has not replied

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


Message 115 of 200 (308949)
05-03-2006 11:40 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Hyroglyphx
05-03-2006 10:29 PM


Let's be clear
it would have to be recognizable enough to know that it was directly related another specie, but that it now fits into a new genera or order
Okay, so let's nail this down. It sounds like you are looking for an organism which would show features which are specific to one group of animals, yet also show features specifically not present in that same group.
In other words - if we look at birds, there are a few key features. All birds have feathers for example. Also, only birds have feathers. So feathers is a very good indicator that something is a bird.
According to that, Archie is a bird.
However, all birds have beaks. Now, not only birds have beaks (for example turtles and squids have beaks and neither are related to birds), but if you have an example of a modern bird you can assume it has a beak.
Now, that's a little strange, because Archie - which because of it's feathers, we've already established is a bird - it doesn't have a beak. It has teeth. But there are no birds with teeth.
So... is it a bird? Is it not a bird?
If archie was a stand alone fossil, maybe we'd be left scratching our heads. But it's not alone. There are dozens (hundreds?) of examples of animal predating and postdating Archaeoptryx. The one's predating have less in common with modern birds. The one's post dating have more in common with modern birds.
I'd say that pretty much sums up what you are asking for.
Now, can you show me an example of a species which has suddenly popped into existance with absolutely no evidence of any earlier species being related to it at all?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-03-2006 10:29 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by arachnophilia, posted 05-05-2006 1:16 AM Nuggin has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 116 of 200 (308960)
05-04-2006 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by Coragyps
05-03-2006 10:33 PM


Re: Atavisms
Of all of the primates, appendices are present in certain lemurs, four types of anthropoid apes, and humans. However, its absent in monkeys. Certain old, nor new world monkeys have an appendix. This doesn't seem to make sense if we are to follow the evolutionary advancement. This seems to jump around quite a bit. The way it jumps around doesn't fit any preconcieved notions of a gradualistic progression, via evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Coragyps, posted 05-03-2006 10:33 PM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Coragyps, posted 05-04-2006 7:40 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 117 of 200 (308986)
05-04-2006 6:29 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by Hyroglyphx
05-03-2006 10:29 PM


Re: You confuse very well-known theories and splice conjecture into it
In my best judgement, macroevolution has been falsified. That's where I'm at in my life.
Mmm... I'm beginning to think this 'devolving' idea of yours may have some merit after all. That is to say, some evidence, at the very least.

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-03-2006 10:29 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

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


Message 118 of 200 (308993)
05-04-2006 7:40 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Hyroglyphx
05-04-2006 12:24 AM


Re: Atavisms
This doesn't seem to make sense if we are to follow the evolutionary advancement.
Here may be your problem, nem j! "Evolutionary advancement" sounds like a "great chain of being" argument: a progression from the lowly worm to the exalted philosopher. It ain't like that. Each lineage - capuchin vs howler monkeys, for instance - has its own history, and each is just as "advanced" as the other. All have evolved to end up where they are this week.
Apparently the vermiform appendix is of little enough consequence in primates that various of us can fail to develop one with no serious repercussions. I'd love to see a species-by-species breakdown of which primates have one and which don't. I'll bet that the distribution tracks lineages, just as you note that it does in the four anthropoids.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-04-2006 12:24 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Quetzal, posted 05-04-2006 9:54 AM Coragyps has not replied

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


Message 119 of 200 (309008)
05-04-2006 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Coragyps
05-04-2006 7:40 AM


Apendix and Primates
I'd love to see a species-by-species breakdown of which primates have one and which don't. I'll bet that the distribution tracks lineages, just as you note that it does in the four anthropoids.
Guess what? You're right (doesn't it feel good to be justified?). Try Scott, GB 1980, "The primate caecum and appendix vermiformis: a comparative study.", J. of Anatomy 131:549-63
quote:
The examination of the caecum of two groups of cynomolgus and rhesus monkeys, two orang-utans and a chimpanzee, as well as an extensive review of the available literature, confirmed that the length of the caecum, relative to that of the colon, decreased as the position of the species in the primate scale rose. Although absent in prosimians and New World monkeys, there was evidence that the appendix vermiformis began to develop in certain Old World monkeys and became fully developed in the anthropoid apes, showing that, far from being a vestigial organ, it has actually developed progressively in primates.
I think it's very interesting that this author downplays the "vestigial" nature of the appendix in certain primates. However, I think he's using a misleading definition of vestigial. As you suggested, it depends on the lineage - and the diet to which they are adapted. For instance, colubine monkeys (old world), are primarily folivores and have developed a foregut digestive system - completely doing away with an appendix, which the lineage never developed (although it does have a caecum). Another major lineage of folivorous monkeys - the Cebidae (new world) - are hindgut fermenters and have only a caecum. Great apes appear to be the only lineage of primates that have developed an appendix. (see, for example, BANR 2003, "Nutrient Requirements of Non-Human Primates", NAP, ppg 22-26). In humans, out of all the hominins, the appendix is highly reduced, probably related to the change in diet when our ancestors left the forest for savannah in the Pliocene. Although still serving a dietary function in the great apes, the only apparent function in humans is as a small part of our immune system - IOW a coopted function, which is my definition of vestigial.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Coragyps, posted 05-04-2006 7:40 AM Coragyps has not replied

  
AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 120 of 200 (309014)
05-04-2006 10:23 AM


Topic Folk
The appendix has nothing to do with the topic unless you can show that birds or Archie have one.

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures
  • Thread Reopen Requests
  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
    New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
  • "Post of the Month" Forum
  • "Columnist's Corner" Forum
    See also Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting


  • Replies to this message:
     Message 121 by Quetzal, posted 05-04-2006 11:27 AM AdminJar 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