|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Does evidence of transitional forms exist ? (Hominid and other) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
For instance, there should have lived in the past some half-fish/half-reptile creatures which had acquired some reptilian traits in addition to the fish traits they already had. You mean, they might spend the first part of their life with a tail and gills, living in water, and then in a later part of their lives they would develop gills and legs and live on land? Maybe you've heard of these organisms - they're called "amphibians."
Or there should have existed some reptile/bird creatures, which had acquired some avian traits in addition to the reptilian traits they already possess. All About Archaeopteryx Of course it's not clear if Archaeopteryx is the ancestor of birds or (according to my Animal Diversity text) if it's a dead-end lineage with a common ancestor to birds. Nonetheless you'd have to be pretty ignorant not to recognize that it has both reptile and bird traits.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: Sediment layers are given a date by the igneous rock above and below the sediments. Please show how erosion et al can affect dating of igneous rock. The polystrate fossils are centuries old, and show how sediment slowly built up around them in their rooted position. Hardly a problem for science. Polystrate schoolhouses can be found in certain parts of the world, covered by numerous ash flows.
quote: Do a search for "mudskippers". These are excellent examples of an extant species that has both amphibian and fish characteristics.
quote: Perhaps you have heard of the Archeopteryx fossils, they show exactly this.
quote: We have observed speciation. This is the only barrier to the production of divergent body plans. Macroevolution is speciation, since this is the only observable barrier to evolution.
quote: And the truth is written into the rocks and each species genome. You might want to consult those sometime. Wanting an ancient text to be true doesn't make it true.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ex libres Member (Idle past 6961 days) Posts: 46 From: USA Joined: |
Quote: "Of course it's not clear if Archaeopteryx is the ancestor of birds or (according to my Animal Diversity text) if it's a dead-end lineage with a common ancestor to birds. Nonetheless you'd have to be pretty ignorant not to recognize that it has both reptile and bird traits."
I would have to be pretty ignorant to make a claim "that it has both reptile and bird traits." Here is why-sorry I keep linking, but they say it much metter than I can.http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/natural_history_2_06.html http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/natural_history_2_08.html
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
Unfortunately, neither of your references actually deals with the "half and half" aspects of Archaeopteryx.
The first points out the bird like characteristics of it. But fails to mention the reptile like characteristics. Why didn't they mention them? The second just goes on about Archaeopteryx not being a modern bird ancestor. That may well be true but doesn't make Archaeopteryx less a part bird, part reptile. If I have misunderstood the point of your references perhaps you could do what you should have done in the first place and used those references to back up your own words. You can explain perhaps?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
oops, click happy,
deleted duplicate post [This message has been edited by NosyNed, 02-17-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: You might want to check out the site below. It details actual morphological characteristics that actually make Archeopteryx more reptillian than you may want to admit. 18 features are shared between reptiles and archeopteryx, most of which are not shared with extant bird species. All About Archaeopteryx
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ex libres Member (Idle past 6961 days) Posts: 46 From: USA Joined: |
I was simply pointing out that to use Archy.. as an example of a transitional form, to make the case for evolution occuring, falls apart when you see what this BIRD truly represents. A BIRD. Not a part reptile part bird. Consider the Platapus is it part duck, part beaver, part kangaroo yada yada yada. No, it is simply a platapus; a very odd creature indeed. Just because some organism has some features of another organism does not mean there is a direct or even an indirrect connection between the two.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: So this means that you can handwave any transitional fossil there is. Why do creationists ask for examples of transitional fossils when they can just claim "Well, it doesn't mean they were related just because they shared some of the same parts." Creationists say this even though they know that is exactly what we would expect to find if evolution was correct. It seems that YEC's don't ask for evidence, they just look for the next excuse to handwave evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
You have a small bit of confusion here.
Let's say, just for a moment, that Archy actually is a 'transitional' form. Ok, what would you call it? There is no taxonomic term for something that isn't a bird but has feathers. Archy can be called a bird because it has several bird specific features, most notably feathers. Archy can be called a reptile because it has very clear reptile features. When it has both there is no name for it. So now the taxonomists start to argue. It's a bird! It's a reptile! It's a plane! The name isn't the point. If you want it to be a bird, then it is a bird with reptile features. If you want it to be a reptile then it is a reptile with bird features. It has both. This is exactly as you would expect in a transitional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5225 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
ex libres,
I was simply pointing out that to use Archy.. as an example of a transitional form, to make the case for evolution occuring, falls apart when you see what this BIRD truly represents. A BIRD. Not a part reptile part bird. Nonsense. Archy was originally classified as a reptile. Let's assume it still was, you would claim that it isn't a transitional because it was classified as a reptile, wouldn't you? It has to be classified as one or the other. The FACT is that is possesses reptilian features that no other bird has, & bird features that no reptile has. It is a classic transitional. How many birds do you know have a long bony tail, abdominal ribs, & a pubic peduncle a la reptiles, among other traits? Mark
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ex libres Member (Idle past 6961 days) Posts: 46 From: USA Joined: |
A watermelon is 80% water. A cloud is 80% water. A jellyfish is 80%water. It appears that a 20% difference is huge for variations in nature.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ex libres Member (Idle past 6961 days) Posts: 46 From: USA Joined: |
How many reptiles do you know that have the breastbone of a bird (necessary for flight)The absence of a sternum (breastbone) in this creature was held up as the most important evidence that this bird could not fly properly. (The sternum is a bone found under the thorax to which the muscles required for flight are attached. In our day, this breastbone is observed in all flying and non-flying birds, and even in bats, a flying mammal which belongs to a very different family.)
However, the seventh Archopteryx fossil, which was found in 1992, had the breastbone that was long assumed by evolutionists to be missing This fossil was described in Nature magazine as follows: "The recently discovered seventh specimen of the Archaeopteryx preserves a partial, rectangular sternum, long suspected but never previously documented. This attests to its strong flight muscles." (Nature, Vol 382, August, 1, 1996, p. 401)This discovery invalidated the claims that Archopteryx was a half-bird that could not fly properly. Moreover, the asymmetric feather structure of Archopteryx is indistinguishable from that of modern birds and indicates that it could fly perfectly well. As the paleontologist Carl O. Dunbar states, "because of its feathers [Archopteryx is] distinctly to be classed as a bird."(Carl O. Dunbar, Historical Geology, New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1961, p. 310)Another fact that was revealed by the structure of Archopteryx's feathers was its warm-blooded metabolism. Reptiles and dinosaurs are cold-blooded animals whose body heat fluctuates with the temperature of their environment, rather than being homeostatically regulated. A very important function of the feathers on birds is the maintenance of a constant body temperature. The fact that Archopteryx had feathers showed that it was a real, warm-blooded bird that needed to regulate its body heat, in contrast to dinosaurs. It is true that Archopteryx had claws on its wings and teeth in its mouth, but these traits do not imply that the creature bore any kind of relationship to reptiles. Besides, two bird species living today, Taouraco and Hoatzin, have claws which allow them to hold onto branches. These creatures are fully birds, with no reptilian characteristics. That is why it is completely groundless to assert that Archopteryx is a transitional form just because of the claws on its wings. Neither do the teeth in Archopteryx's beak imply that it is a transitional form. Evolutionists use deception by saying that these teeth are reptile characteristics, since teeth are not a typical feature of reptiles. Today, some reptiles have teeth while others do not. Moreover, Archopteryx is not the only bird species to possess teeth. It is true that there are no toothed birds in existence today, but when we look at the fossil record, we see that both during the time of Archopteryx and afterwards, and even until fairly recently, a distinct bird genus existed that could be categorised as "birds with teeth". The most important point is that the tooth structure of Archopteryx and other birds with teeth is totally different from that of their alleged ancestors, the dinosaurs. The ornithologists L. D. Martin, J. D. Steward, and K. N. Whetstone observed that Archopteryx and other similar birds have teeth with flat-topped surfaces and large roots. Yet the teeth of theropod dinosaurs, the alleged ancestors of these birds, are protuberant like saws and have narrow roots. (L. D. Martin, J. D. Stewart, K. N. Whetstone, The Auk, Vol 98, 1980, p. 86)These researchers also compared the wrist bones of Archopteryx and their alleged ancestors, the dinosaurs, and observed no similarity between them. All these findings indicate that Archopteryx was not a transitional link but only a bird that fell into a category that can be called "toothed birds".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5225 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
ex libre,
Please address the point I raised. Archy has traits associated with reptiles as well as birds. A fossil possessing traits normally associated with different taxa is what is expected of a transitional, it is an evolutionary prediction borne out. Mark [This message has been edited by mark24, 03-01-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Andya Primanda Inactive Member |
ex libre,
First, How many birds do you know that have a reptilelike long bony tail such as Archaeopteryx? Second, Are you just pasting somebody else's material? You sound like Harun Yahya.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ex libres Member (Idle past 6961 days) Posts: 46 From: USA Joined: |
Quote: "A fossil possessing traits normally associated with different taxa is what is expected of a transitional, it is an evolutionary prediction borne out."
Explain to me how Archy came to be. (A) Did a dinosaur such as a raptor lay an egg and out popped Archy? or (B)Did Archy develop the wings over a long period of time? If (A), then punctuated equalibrium is your game; a theory not even accepted by most evolutionists. If (B) then wouldn't One, partly formed wings be a disadvantage in that they would be useless until fully formed and two, does evolution cause changes in such a way that predicts future forms as being advantages. and Three, we have found the supposed dino ancestor of Archy and we have found Archy, why haven't we found anything between the two as we would expect if it were a true transitional form? These are the questions you should ask yourself. A watermelon is 80% water, a jellyfish is 80% water, and a cloud is 80% water. There is only 20% difference. Do they have a common ancestor? Where are the transitionals of plants and insects? Why would only a few speicies experiance evolutionary change while others seem to vertually identical to their prehistoric ancestors. The Nautilus is one example, the Cealocanth (not sure of spelling)is another, as well as bacteria, amphibians, and insects found in amber.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024