Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 91 (8840 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-28-2018 5:38 AM
232 online now:
Meddle, PaulK (2 members, 230 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Calvin
Post Volume:
Total: 832,644 Year: 7,467/29,783 Month: 1,691/1,708 Week: 94/488 Day: 5/89 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
456
...
21NextFF
Author Topic:   Evolution Logic
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5323
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 31 of 302 (318466)
06-06-2006 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Someone who cares
06-06-2006 10:06 PM


Hi, SWC!

Or if you found a REAL fossil of a scale evolving into a feather.

What are you trying to say here? Scales and feathers don't reproduce, and don't do like X-men and morph into something new with titanium claws.

Animals with scales and feathers, like chickens with scales on their legs, do reproduce, and the chicks don't exactly copy every feature of the parents. Some fancy breeds of chickens even have feathers down to their feet - where their ancestors had scales. Is this what you're driving at?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Someone who cares, posted 06-06-2006 10:06 PM Someone who cares has not yet responded

  
Cthulhu
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 273
From: Roe Dyelin
Joined: 09-09-2003


Message 32 of 302 (318471)
06-06-2006 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Someone who cares
06-06-2006 9:52 PM


The Nylon Bug.

Long story short, it is a bacterium that had a frame-shift mutation that caused it to produce an enzyme that can metabolize nylon. Such a change would qualify it as a new species. Since macroevolution refers to speciation, that is an example of macroevolution.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Someone who cares, posted 06-06-2006 9:52 PM Someone who cares has not yet responded

  
Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 3529 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 33 of 302 (318474)
06-06-2006 10:36 PM


Hi, SWC!

Hi, you're using my nickname already, do I know you from other forums? If not, just ignore this.

What are you trying to say here? Scales and feathers don't reproduce, and don't do like X-men and morph into something new with titanium claws.

Animals with scales and feathers, like chickens with scales on their legs, do reproduce, and the chicks don't exactly copy every feature of the parents. Some fancy breeds of chickens even have feathers down to their feet - where their ancestors had scales. Is this what you're driving at?

Ok, here's what I meant. Evolutionists say that reptiles evolved into birds. Reptiles have scales for a covering, birds have feathers. So, if reptiles evolved into birds, the scales would have to have evolved into feathers.

The Nylon Bug.
Long story short, it is a bacterium that had a frame-shift mutation that caused it to produce an enzyme that can metabolize nylon. Such a change would qualify it as a new species. Since macroevolution refers to speciation, that is an example of macroevolution.

Um, I would not say that speciation is macroevolution. Macroevolution would have to evolve one kind of an organism from another kind. Like a human from a monkey. A bird from a reptile. Etc. That is what I am looking for, not speciation.


"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown
Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Coragyps, posted 06-06-2006 10:41 PM Someone who cares has responded
 Message 36 by Belfry, posted 06-06-2006 10:58 PM Someone who cares has responded

Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5323
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 34 of 302 (318476)
06-06-2006 10:41 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Someone who cares
06-06-2006 10:36 PM


So, if reptiles evolved into birds, the scales would have to have evolved into feathers.

As in the example I gave you, where the main selection pressure for the evolutionary event happened to be human desire for goofy-looking chickens. Leg scales ----> feathers. QED.

No, I don't know you - I'm a lazy, slow typist and abbreviate things sometimes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Someone who cares, posted 06-06-2006 10:36 PM Someone who cares has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Someone who cares, posted 06-06-2006 10:48 PM Coragyps has responded

  
Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 3529 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 35 of 302 (318481)
06-06-2006 10:48 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Coragyps
06-06-2006 10:41 PM


As in the example I gave you, where the main selection pressure for the evolutionary event happened to be human desire for goofy-looking chickens. Leg scales ----> feathers. QED.

No, but see, that is breeding artificially, what you brought up. I want to see something in nature, happening without humans intervening. And, it would have to be a reptilian scale evolving into a bird feather, like a fossil of this.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Coragyps, posted 06-06-2006 10:41 PM Coragyps has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Coragyps, posted 06-06-2006 10:59 PM Someone who cares has responded
 Message 38 by arachnophilia, posted 06-06-2006 11:00 PM Someone who cares has responded

Belfry
Member (Idle past 2864 days)
Posts: 177
From: Ocala, FL
Joined: 11-05-2005


Message 36 of 302 (318482)
06-06-2006 10:58 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Someone who cares
06-06-2006 10:36 PM


SWC writes:

Um, I would not say that speciation is macroevolution. Macroevolution would have to evolve one kind of an organism from another kind. Like a human from a monkey. A bird from a reptile. Etc. That is what I am looking for, not speciation.


If you mean a human individual born from a monkey individual, or a bird hatching from an egg laid by a reptile, these are not things that are expected according to evolutionary theory. They are silly creationist straw-man ideas of what evolution is. What you want is not macroevolution (which is really just the result of an accumulation of microevolutionary changes), but something more like saltationism.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Someone who cares, posted 06-06-2006 10:36 PM Someone who cares has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Someone who cares, posted 06-06-2006 11:07 PM Belfry has not yet responded

Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5323
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 37 of 302 (318483)
06-06-2006 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Someone who cares
06-06-2006 10:48 PM


In that case you need to look into the large selection of bird-like dinosaur and dinosaur-like bird fossils that they just keep on finding in China, Madagascar, and Argentina. I'll have to dig out my file on them to give you names to Google - there are examples of a variety of not-quite-feathers on dinosaurs all the way to flight-like feathers on "birds" with teeth and long bony tails.

That would make a mighty nice thread, btw, if some of you palaeo freaks would help out.....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Someone who cares, posted 06-06-2006 10:48 PM Someone who cares has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by arachnophilia, posted 06-06-2006 11:03 PM Coragyps has not yet responded
 Message 42 by Someone who cares, posted 06-06-2006 11:16 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 511 days)
Posts: 9068
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 38 of 302 (318485)
06-06-2006 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Someone who cares
06-06-2006 10:48 PM


No, but see, that is breeding artificially, what you brought up. I want to see something in nature, happening without humans intervening. And, it would have to be a reptilian scale evolving into a bird feather, like a fossil of this.

well, what we have is the proof that one gene alters a condition which must previously exist. birds had feathers on all four limbs prior to developing scutes. in fact, we see confirmation of this in the fossil record: we have some nice four-winged dinosaurs.

but your post makes an additional error. while scutes and feathers are very similar in composition, scutes/feathers and reptilian scales (such as the ones found on the bottom of a bird's foot) are not the same at all. feathers evolved from something else. all of the earliest feathers we have are more similar to hair than to scales.

Edited by arachnophilia, : typod


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Someone who cares, posted 06-06-2006 10:48 PM Someone who cares has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Someone who cares, posted 06-06-2006 11:13 PM arachnophilia has responded

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 511 days)
Posts: 9068
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 39 of 302 (318487)
06-06-2006 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Coragyps
06-06-2006 10:59 PM


there are examples of a variety of not-quite-feathers on dinosaurs

we have quite a lot of examples with stuff similar to down. we even have a tyrannosaurid (dilong paradoxus) now that has downy feathers.

added by edit:

bird-like dinosaur and dinosaur-like bird fossils

kind of a funny term. birds ARE dinosaurs. so you can have bird-like dinosaurs, but not dinosaur-like birds. more primitive, yes. more similar to non-avian dinosaurs, yes.

Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Coragyps, posted 06-06-2006 10:59 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 3529 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 40 of 302 (318493)
06-06-2006 11:07 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Belfry
06-06-2006 10:58 PM


If you mean a human individual born from a monkey individual, or a bird hatching from an egg laid by a reptile, these are not things that are expected according to evolutionary theory. They are silly creationist straw-man ideas of what evolution is. What you want is not macroevolution (which is really just the result of an accumulation of microevolutionary changes), but something more like saltationism.

No, that is not what I want. What you described with the reptile laying an egg with a bird is the "hopeful monster" theory which some have made after rejecting Darwinism. That is not macroevolution.

What I would mean, by a human from a monkey, is a REAl fossil(s) of this transition, one that is valid and relative. I know you believe evolution takes time and goes in steps. So show me the REAL steps of a monkey turning into a human, or something to the sort.

And no, microevolution does not accumulate to make macroevolution. They are two different things. Microevolution, I like to call it "variations within a kind", is those changes that happen within a kind. Macroevolution, real evolution, is when one kind of an organism evolves into a different one.


"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown
This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Belfry, posted 06-06-2006 10:58 PM Belfry has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 06-06-2006 11:18 PM Someone who cares has responded
 Message 94 by RAZD, posted 06-07-2006 10:16 PM Someone who cares has responded
 Message 95 by kuresu, posted 06-07-2006 11:24 PM Someone who cares has responded
 Message 109 by RAZD, posted 06-08-2006 8:50 PM Someone who cares has responded

Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 3529 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 41 of 302 (318495)
06-06-2006 11:13 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by arachnophilia
06-06-2006 11:00 PM


well, what we have is the proof that one gene alters a condition which must previously exist. birds had feathers on all four limbs prior to developing scutes. in fact, we see confirmation of this in the fossil record: we have some nice four-winged dinosaurs.

but your post makes an additional error. while scutes and feathers are very similar in composition, scutes/feathers and reptilian scales (such as the ones found on the bottom of a bird's foot) are not the same at all. feathers evolved from something else. all of the earliest feathers we have are more similar to hair than to scales.

But see, if reptiles did indeed evolve into birds as evolutionists claim, then the scales would have to have evolved into feathers, and the one lung type would have to have evolved into the other one, and so on... I would like someone to show me a fossil of this transition, or evidence that it could happen in the genetic code, or something to the sort.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by arachnophilia, posted 06-06-2006 11:00 PM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by arachnophilia, posted 06-06-2006 11:34 PM Someone who cares has responded

Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 3529 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 42 of 302 (318497)
06-06-2006 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Coragyps
06-06-2006 10:59 PM


In that case you need to look into the large selection of bird-like dinosaur and dinosaur-like bird fossils that they just keep on finding in China, Madagascar, and Argentina. I'll have to dig out my file on them to give you names to Google - there are examples of a variety of not-quite-feathers on dinosaurs all the way to flight-like feathers on "birds" with teeth and long bony tails.

But would these finds show transitions from reptilian body parts to bird body parts? Scale-feathers? Or something else?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Coragyps, posted 06-06-2006 10:59 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

SuperNintendo Chalmers
Member (Idle past 3612 days)
Posts: 772
From: Bartlett, IL, USA
Joined: 12-27-2005


Message 43 of 302 (318498)
06-06-2006 11:18 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Someone who cares
06-06-2006 11:07 PM


Great example
No, that is not what I want. What you described with the reptile laying an egg with a bird is the "hopeful monster" theory which some have made after rejecting Darwinism. That is not macroevolution.

What I would mean, by a human from a monkey, is a REAl fossil(s) of this transition, one that is valid and relative. I know you believe evolution takes time and goes in steps. So show me the REAL steps of a monkey turning into a human, or something to the sort.

And no, microevolution does not accumulate to make macroevolution. They are two different things. Microevolution, I like to call it "variations within a kind", is those changes that happen within a kind. Macroevolution, real evolution, is when one kind of an organism evolves into a different one.

Whale evolution is a GREAT place to start.

These things you want to see certainly exist.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~gingeric/PDGwhales/Whales.htm

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_05.html


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Someone who cares, posted 06-06-2006 11:07 PM Someone who cares has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Someone who cares, posted 06-06-2006 11:36 PM SuperNintendo Chalmers has responded

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 511 days)
Posts: 9068
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 44 of 302 (318506)
06-06-2006 11:34 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Someone who cares
06-06-2006 11:13 PM


But see, if reptiles did indeed evolve into birds as evolutionists claim, then the scales would have to have evolved into feathers,

no. not at all. for starters, not all reptiles have scales in the manner that you are probably thinking. quite a lot are rather smooth skinned. and, we have a number reptiles, and things descended from sauropsids, that have hair. while early mammals/thecodonts are not the best example, pterosaurs are much more closely related. they are also archosaurs, reptiles, and many have hair.

feathers are hair-like structures, and simplest feathers (like down) are nearly analogous to hair in almost every way. first one strand per follicle, then many (down) and then twisting together into harder spines (the sorts of feathers chicken feet grow). as the spines continue to twist, you start seeing strands extend from them. from there it's just barbules to aid in rigidity, and assymetry to aid in flight. we have examples of many of these types of feathers.

and the one lung type would have to have evolved into the other one, and so on...

we have a whole thread on the avian lung. it's a little hard prove definitively, since internal organs fossilize so rarely. but one thing is actually somewhat certain: theropod dinosaurs had lungs VERY similar to modern birds, and long before they could fly. we know this because many had pneumatized bones, like birds. in a bird skeleton, the hollow bones are actually linked to the respiratory system, via the air sacs. so the fact that a dinosaur like velociraptor has hollow bones means it almost certainly had air sacs as well. the system as a whole appears to have gone from a normal reptilian lung (lacking diaphragm), to a single-cycle air sac system, which used the sacs somewhat like a diaphragm. from there, the process just becomes two-cycle, instead of one. the curious point of this that all the while, dinosaurs remain "rib breathers." and that includes modern birds -- which still use the motion of their chests to aid respiration.

you may want to look at my message 24 of that thread for a more complete explanation.

Edited by arachnophilia, : typo


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Someone who cares, posted 06-06-2006 11:13 PM Someone who cares has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Someone who cares, posted 06-07-2006 12:01 AM arachnophilia has responded

Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 3529 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 45 of 302 (318507)
06-06-2006 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by SuperNintendo Chalmers
06-06-2006 11:18 PM


Re: Great example
Whale evolution is a GREAT place to start.

These things you want to see certainly exist.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~gingeric/PDGwhales/Whales.htm

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_05.html

That does not show macroevolution. And, if it were true, it would not help evolution, it would show just the opposite, a whale losing legs. While evolution requires GAINING them. This would only prove the point that creatures can't gain new body parts that are not of their kind.


"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown
This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 06-06-2006 11:18 PM SuperNintendo Chalmers has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by arachnophilia, posted 06-06-2006 11:41 PM Someone who cares has responded
 Message 47 by jar, posted 06-06-2006 11:47 PM Someone who cares has responded
 Message 53 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 06-07-2006 12:18 AM Someone who cares has responded

Prev12
3
456
...
21NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018