Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 90 (8876 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-13-2018 3:33 AM
192 online now:
Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Tangle (4 members, 188 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Bill Holbert
Post Volume:
Total: 843,919 Year: 18,742/29,783 Month: 687/2,043 Week: 239/386 Day: 3/95 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
91011
12
1314Next
Author Topic:   Archaeopteryx and Dino-Bird Evolution
Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 3728 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 166 of 200 (347675)
09-08-2006 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by Belfry
09-08-2006 10:32 PM


Re: the great Archaeopteryx hoax
quote:
Please check below post (edit: by which I mean Message 154), I've replied to your replies. You're running behind. It's okay to skip ahead in situations like that.

Yeah, it's hard to catch up with so many people replying to me. Yes, I was behind, but now I have come to your post and replied above. :) Hope you understand how hard it is for me to sit here and try to reply to material from yesterday, and have new material posted today that I have to reply to as well. It just takes soooo long and I go in order, so things like the above will happen often. I'll leave this as it is for now and move on to something different, I've spent too much time just on this topic...


"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown
This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Belfry, posted 09-08-2006 10:32 PM Belfry has not yet responded

  
subbie
Member
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 167 of 200 (347679)
09-08-2006 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by Someone who cares
09-08-2006 10:41 PM


Re: Archaeopteryx- most likely fraud, if not, still not transitional
But if you examine the fossil finds, you will see all animals and plants complete, with no evolving parts, like scale/feathers.

That makes as much sense as saying there's no evidence of creationism because we've never seen a gene that had the words "Made by Yahweh" inscribed on them.

Parts don't evolve. Individual organisms don't evolve. Populations do.

I think you'll find that generally you can make a more compelling argument if you at least understand the basics of what you are arguing against. And I'd suggest that if you do want to understand the basics, that you look for that understanding from scientists, rather than creationists.


Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Someone who cares, posted 09-08-2006 10:41 PM Someone who cares has not yet responded

  
Belfry
Member (Idle past 3063 days)
Posts: 177
From: Ocala, FL
Joined: 11-05-2005


Message 168 of 200 (347686)
09-08-2006 11:02 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by Someone who cares
09-08-2006 10:41 PM


Re: Archaeopteryx- most likely fraud, if not, still not transitional
SWC writes:

you won't say the platypus is transitional because it has characteristics of reptiles, mammals and birds, would you?


Yes! Platypus is a transitional form, like other monotremes. Not between mammals and birds, though - rather, theraspid reptiles. Don't let the "duckbill" fool you, it is not a beak.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Someone who cares, posted 09-08-2006 10:41 PM Someone who cares has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 81 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 169 of 200 (347687)
09-08-2006 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Someone who cares
09-08-2006 9:58 PM


Re: Archaeopteryx- most likely fraud, if not, still not transitional
But point is, dead birds float if they land in a lake.

Actually dead birds on a lake will either sink or get scavenged. There is an interesting study associated with this that you can read:

SINKING RATES OF DEAD BIRDS: IMPROVING
ESTIMATES OF SEABIRD MORTALITY DUE TO OILING
FRANCIS K. WIESE

quote:
If birds are scavenged at sea, the number of days carcasses remain
afloat under natural conditions may be substantially shorter than
the 6 – 11 d estimate derived from these experiments. Although
scavenging of carcasses at sea has not been quantitatively
documented, it is often observed by duck and murre hunters in
Newfoundland, especially close to shore. In most instances, gulls
pick at these carcasses until they open their body cavity, at which
point internal gases can escape, bodies get water-logged, get too
heavy for gulls or other aerial scavengers to keep afloat, and sink.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Someone who cares, posted 09-08-2006 9:58 PM Someone who cares has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 81 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 170 of 200 (347714)
09-08-2006 11:30 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by Someone who cares
09-08-2006 10:20 PM


Re: Taphonomy, lagerstatte

How do you explain petrified trees found upright in the layers, protruding through "many different time periods", or a whale doing this? Doesn't a global flood and Creation better describe this?

I'll be glad to offer my views on the subject in an appropriate thread. You might want to take a look this and this.

And quoting Babu G. Ranganathan who has an obvious creationist bias doesn't help. Why don't you look to information provided by the scientists that work in this field rather than someone with a BA Minor in Biology? I assure you that you will learn more if you consider the process of fossilization from the sources that require more time to understand.

quote:
Permineralization is a second type of fossil formed. The soft tissue of the
organism decay away and the remaining hard parts are flooded with ground water.
Dissolved with in the water is calcium carbonate (calcite) or silicate. Which
ever mineral is present precipitates out and fills the pores of the long gone
organism. Cementation occurs and a "rock" is left in the place of the wood or
bone or what-have-you with an amazing amount of detail preserved as well.
Dissolution and replacement is a third type of fossilization and can be a step
wise progression from permineralization. In some cases, when the ground water
flows into the space previously occupied by the soft tissues of the organism,
the original material may dissolve away, leaving a void in the surrounding
sediments. This space, which is in the shape of the organism like a jell-0
mold, quickly becomes filled with minerals and an internal mold or "stone cast"
is formed. Replacement can occur if it is a per mineral fossil which is
dissolved and replaced by a secondary type of mineral.

source, S. Aaron Spriggs Colorado State University

I trust you will do your utmost to consider carefully the question on how fossils are known to form, and you wont just consider what the people who agree with your point of view are telling you about how they form.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Someone who cares, posted 09-08-2006 10:20 PM Someone who cares has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 171 of 200 (347729)
09-09-2006 1:32 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by Someone who cares
09-08-2006 9:50 PM


Re: Archaeopteryx- most likely fraud, if not, still not transitional
You're coming to me for information? Wow.

no, those are rhetorical questions. i know that there are no modern birds that lack bills, have teeth, and unfused digits forming a manus instead of a carpometacarpus (the fancy phraseology for "hands, not wings")

Hey, did you know that it is proposed to make a whole sub class of fossil birds called Odontornithes- birds with teeth? Yep. One group is Ichthyornidae.

ichthyornidae have been extinct for about 65 million years. if memory serves, they are late cretaceous and went out with the dinosaurs, although they are closely related to neornithes, modern birds.

that paper is also from 1873, when icthyornis was first found.

Hey, and as for birds with claws on their wings, we have Hoatzin, and Emus, and probably more.

*buzzer* wrong again.


Click to enlarge

hoatzin do not have claws on their wings in their adult life. they also do not have fully formed digits (the third is dimutive and partially used to the second) even in their embryonic stage. again, the fact that their embyronic stage so much resembles theropod morphology helps to demonstrate theropod ancestry -- a much better explanation than the creationist "coincidence."

i'm not sure about ratite wing claws, but if i recall, the have a singular digit, not three, and it is highly dimunitive -- not a functional hand (as specified). but yes, paleognaths retain many dinosaurian characteristics.

Like I said above, there are creatures with characteristics from several groups of animals, but that doesn't make them transitional. We don't see any evolving "transitionals", but we see them complete, as Creationists would expect.

creationists aren't very good at this game. i've played it before. "show me something between this and this" they say. when we provide them something that meets their criteria, they reject it because it's a "complete" animal, and must have been created that way. then they ask for the next half-way point, and the next, and the next, each time classifying it as "just this" or "just that." in the process, they often end up muddling up definitions (archaeopteryx is a modern bird? so is deinonychus then) and showing that things are for more related than they ever intended -- all while failing to see the lines between the dots.

you don't see a transitional? good, niether do i. archaeopteryx is a bird. and archaeopteryx is also a dinosaur. birds don't come from dinosaurs, birds are dinosaurs. the only "transition" going on is that some dinosaurs grew feathers, fused some bones, and took to the skies.

Edited by AdminAsgara, : changed img to thumbnail to fix page width


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Someone who cares, posted 09-08-2006 9:50 PM Someone who cares has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 172 of 200 (347730)
09-09-2006 1:36 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by Someone who cares
09-08-2006 9:58 PM


Re: Archaeopteryx- most likely fraud, if not, still not transitional
Um, you must be lucky to live by a beach (that's what I am guessing from your post), but many of us don't, at least I don't. Nearest one is like 45 min. drive from here, so I'm not going to go out there right now.

no lakes, or any source of water nearby? do you live in a desert?

I can remember seeing seagulls, but no dino/birds flying around.

contradictory. you either see seagulls, or you don't see dinosaurs/birds flying around.

But point is, dead birds float if they land in a lake.

birds are hollow. their respiratory system, filled with air sacs, is connected directly to their pneumatized (hollow) bones. they float because they are very low density.

guess what happens when water gets into that respiratory system?

And, not all fossilized creatures lived near lagoons, how do you explain their fossilization? I say a big flood did it.

not the topic of this thread. many creatures fossilized by other means, and suprise, not all of them involve water. deserts work just as well, if not better.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Someone who cares, posted 09-08-2006 9:58 PM Someone who cares has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 173 of 200 (347731)
09-09-2006 2:04 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by Someone who cares
09-08-2006 10:12 PM


Re: Archaeopteryx- most likely fraud, if not, still not transitional
There are no transitional fossils with partially evolving bones or something.

what, precisely, do you expect?

for instance, modern birds have a bone called a carpometacarpus. it forms the structural base of the wing-tip. if you've ever eaten chicken, you've seen one. it's that part of the wing with so little meat on it that it's hardly worth the bother.

the carpometacarpus, a single bone in birds, is many bones in dinosaurs. theropod dinosaurs have three digits. as dinosaurs become more bird-like, these digits are extended, made more or gracile, and eventually diminish -- and fuse to the digits next to them. the hand of a dinosaur like velociraptor is a "partially evolved" bird wing. all the structures are homologous, but the bones have not fused.

I have yet to see a scale/feather transitional fossil.

feathers did not evolve from scales.

All I see is complete creatures, just like I would expect since God Created them.

i went and saw a movie last week. well, i didn't really see a movie. rather i saw about 130,000 still frames, all complete pictures. no motion actually happened on the screen.

Isn't it a bit odd that in all our fossil finds we find not ONE transitional fossil that in undebateable? You would expect to find at least a few hundred, but can't even produce one that is undebateable...

because the creationist definition of "transitional" is a logical contradiction. you define something as, basically, not existing, and then prove your definition by implimenting it.

you won't find "incomplete" animals, but rather fully functional and "complete" animals that share characteristics of animals related to them. it's only by stepping back and looking at the bigger picture of how each creature is related to the other creatures around it that you see the transitions. just like you'll never understand a movie if you just look at each individual frame.

here we have an especially obvious and shining example of a creature that clearly fits two categories. archaeopteryx's skeletal anatomy is about 99% standard dinosaurian architecture, with a few minute things that tie to ancestral birds. but it's covered with perfectly formed modern feathers, a feature of birds. it's enough of a "hopeful monster" and enough of what creationists are asking for that they like to cry "fraud!"

afterall, the best demonstration that your expectations can't possibly be fulfilled is that when something comes close, you write it off as a fake.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Someone who cares, posted 09-08-2006 10:12 PM Someone who cares has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 174 of 200 (347734)
09-09-2006 2:51 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by Someone who cares
09-08-2006 9:31 PM


Re: the great Archaeopteryx hoax
No, they most likely made the feather imprint seperately, then combined the two fossils. And the grain DIDN'T match, and the bubbles were left as proof of fraud work, and using some kind of camera you could see the two different colors of the pieces.

let's examine this hoax claim a little.

first, i'd like to present that there are seven archaeopteryx specimens, all with exactly identical plumage. not only does every subsequent argument here apply to all seven, but the fact that there are seven identical specimens indicates that if there was a forger, it would only have been a single individual, as they were all made by the same hand. this individual must have worked from 1861 (london specimen) to 1993 (the newest german specimen), giving him a career of at least 132 years producing hoaxes.

the other interesting point is that this then requires that every feathered dinosaur ever found is a hoax as well. every microraptor, sinornis, sinosauropteryx, claudipteryx, dilong, etc, specimen, ALL hoaxes. archaeopteryx is not the only feathered dinosaur; there's more than a dozen of them, all with multiple specimens found by independent teams, under very academic and review conditions. so you're basically alleging a gigantic scientific conspiracy, involving nearly everyone in paleontology.

now, let's look at some important facts, nicely compiled by t.o:

quote:
On the Maxburg specimen, the feathers continue under the bones and are overlain with dendrites that sometimes form within bedding planes, precluding the possibility of forgery (Charig 1986).

want to explain how the forger carved the rock under the bones, without removing them?

quote:
Tiny fractures, infilled with calcite, extend through both feathers and bones, showing that they have the same source. They also match perfectly from slab to counterslab, proving that the two fit together (Charig 1986). These fractures are invisible to normal vision; a nineteenth-century forger would not even know they existed, much less be able to replicate them.

there have been new developments in paleontology since 1861. they're quite good at detecting forgeries now, which is why things like "archaeoraptor" don't fly. we know about stuff now that they had no idea about in the 1860's -- so how in the world would a sculptor carve something microscopic and unknown?

feel free to keep reading at the t.o. page. but i'd like to emphasize one point in particular, on an artistic note. archer was probably sarcastic in his "amazing eye for art" comment, but i'm actually an art student.

the fact of the matter is that in all seven specimens, the slab and the counterslab are matched perfectly. there is simply no way to do this by hand. on a practical level, it's simply impossible. it requires a god-like degree of precision, something that humans lack neurologically. we simply are unable to match things on a microscopic level -- to prove it, try to stand perfectly still. what happens is that your brain and spinal column are in constant communication with your muscles, which are constantly self-correcting. the result is minute movement -- and this increases with muscle fatigue. the end result is that precision down the micron is simply out of human ability. we're good at gross motor ability, but fine motor ability is much, much harder the smaller you go.

precision on this level indicates a chemical process, kind of like photography. even then, with the human hand involved, no pictures i print in my darkroom are exactly identical down to the micron. even though i used the same negative, the same enlarger/lens/easel, kind of paper. my hands had to touch the equipment to reset it, and the paper i used was a physically different sheet -- so the relationship of the grain of the paper to the grain of the photo will not be identical. the only way for that happen is if both pictures were formed at the same time.

meaning, before the rock was split in two. that chemical process is called "fossilization" and the only hand involved was the hand of god. it's artistically and humanly impossible to create the conditions present in the archaeopteryx specimens.

Hesperornis is a toothed marine bird, it's not anything like a reptile/bird.

yeah? hesperorniformes lacked pneumatized bones. that (along with teeth) is a reptilian characteristic, in case you're keeping track. want another? they lack keels on their sternum. the only birds with that condition are ratites -- it's a highly dinosaurian feature. if you also take a look at the hips, they're not as flattened as birds', they look much more like dromaeosaurs.

Same with Velociraptor, just a dinosaur, I don't see any evolving parts there, and I don't think it leads to archaeopteryx in any way

velociraptor has a furcula (wishbone), semi-lunate carpals, pneumatized bones, and backwards facing pubis. those are bird features, in case you're keeping track. velociraptor also has the longest arm-leg ratio of any dinosaur, making him very very avian. as for tying him to archaeopteryx, both have the characteristic hyperextentible second toe -- suggesting that archaeopteryx was a deinonychosaur, along with velociraptor, dromaeosaurus, and deinonychus (and microraptor). archaeopteryx has skeletal anatomy nearly 100% identical to dromaeosaurs. the features that are not identical are even more bird-like.

because no creatures evolved into different creatures in the first place, they were all created, and they have variations within their kinds.

well, see, here's the key. you don't think they're related because you believe they are not related. if it's just variation within kind, velociraptor is a bird. many paleontologists are already calling him a flightless bird, because the evidence is so good that archaeopteryx (the first bird) was a basal deinonychosaur. meaning, velociraptor evolved from an animal that could fly.

You can't even prove that any of those creatures even had offspring!

the birds and the bees and the flowers and trees.

I'm only offering all the possibilities, it could be just a reptile, just a bird, or a fraud, which is what I think it is. But there are just as many arguments for it being just a bird or just a reptile. BUT NOT BOTH!

don't be silly. it's a dinosaur, even a sauropsid, but not a reptile.

reptiles are cold-blooded. the first dinosaurs were all bipedal (even earliest sauropods, btw), as was archaeopteryx and every other theropod dinosaur (by definition). name me another cold-blooded bipedal animal.

Edited by arachnophilia, : typo

Edited by arachnophilia, : now that anglagard is pointing s1wc back here, again, i've noticed some more typos. i really should proofread better


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Someone who cares, posted 09-08-2006 9:31 PM Someone who cares has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by MangyTiger, posted 09-09-2006 3:16 PM arachnophilia has responded

  
MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 4331 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 175 of 200 (347791)
09-09-2006 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by arachnophilia
09-09-2006 2:51 AM


Re: the great Archaeopteryx hoax
name me another cold-blooded bipedal animal.

Anne Coulter.

velociraptor also has the longest arm-leg ratio of any dinosaur

To somebody like me who doesn't know too much about paleontology (would desperately love to but life gets in the way of having enough time) that's quite surprising. The obvious guess would be Tyrannosaurus rex or one of the other giant bipedal carnivores with little arms.

meaning, velociraptor evolved from an animal that could fly.

I don't know why but I just love that idea. It just shows what amazing paths the undirected process of evolution leads to given enough time.

Alternatively it shows how incredibly complex the history of life on earth is and how difficult it is for us to reconstruct it properly from the snapshots we find in the fossil record.


Oops! Wrong Planet
This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by arachnophilia, posted 09-09-2006 2:51 AM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by kuresu, posted 09-09-2006 4:01 PM MangyTiger has not yet responded
 Message 180 by arachnophilia, posted 09-09-2006 5:38 PM MangyTiger has not yet responded

    
kuresu
Member (Idle past 490 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 176 of 200 (347803)
09-09-2006 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by MangyTiger
09-09-2006 3:16 PM


Re: the great Archaeopteryx hoax
I think arach was trying to say that velociraptor has long arms compared to the legs. just like birds today--except birds have even longer arms compared to their legs (I think)

t-rex would have a very short arm to leg ratio--short arms compared to the legs.

so long as I understood arach correctly.


All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences
This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by MangyTiger, posted 09-09-2006 3:16 PM MangyTiger has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by arachnophilia, posted 09-09-2006 10:19 PM kuresu has not yet responded

    
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5365
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 177 of 200 (347808)
09-09-2006 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by Someone who cares
09-08-2006 10:05 PM


Re: Archaeopteryx- most likely fraud, if not, still not transitional
As for the other word, you're joking, right?

No.

The Solnhofen Limestone is the remnant of that lagoon bottom I mentioned earlier. All seven known Archaeopteryx fossils came from it. And it didn't get deposited in a giant forty-day flood, either.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Someone who cares, posted 09-08-2006 10:05 PM Someone who cares has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by arachnophilia, posted 09-09-2006 10:21 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

    
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5365
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 178 of 200 (347810)
09-09-2006 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by Someone who cares
09-08-2006 10:20 PM


Re: Taphonomy, lagerstatte
Most of the many millions of fossils in the world are found in rock which has been affected by water, and, therefore, the fossils of these animals were formed as a result of the animals being buried suddenly and quickly under tremendous water pressure."

What? Because a rock "has been affected by water," anything in it was "buried suddenly and quickly under tremendous water pressure?" That's rather a non sequitur, don't you think? And what would "tremendous water pressure" have to do with whether a bone fossilizes or not? Is "tremendous" 50 psi? 500 psi? This is pure unsupported assertion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Someone who cares, posted 09-08-2006 10:20 PM Someone who cares has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16065
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 179 of 200 (347811)
09-09-2006 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by Someone who cares
09-08-2006 9:31 PM


But there are just as many arguments for it being just a bird or just a reptile.

I think you mean "... or just a dinosaur".

Yes, there are.

And that makes it an intermediate form, doesn't it?

This is why creationists can't decide whether they should argue whether it's a dinosaur or a bird. This is why one minute you're arguing that it has the features of a modern bird, and the next minute that it was faked out of a dinosaur skeleton. There's no way for you guys to make your minds up, because it is in fact an intermediate form.

If it really was one or the other, you guys would be able to tell us which. But you can't, can you?

The arguments for it being a bird are its bird-like features. The arguments for it being a dinosaur are its dinosaur features. It has a mix of these features. It is an intermediate form.

You can even see this in particular anatomical features. Take the pubis. Like the pubis of a bird, it points backwards. Like the pubis of a dinosaur, it has an unfused ischium and ilium. A transitional part in a transitional form.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Someone who cares, posted 09-08-2006 9:31 PM Someone who cares has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 180 of 200 (347823)
09-09-2006 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by MangyTiger
09-09-2006 3:16 PM


Re: the great Archaeopteryx hoax
name me another cold-blooded bipedal animal.

Anne Coulter.

touche.

velociraptor also has the longest arm-leg ratio of any dinosaur

To somebody like me who doesn't know too much about paleontology (would desperately love to but life gets in the way of having enough time) that's quite surprising. The obvious guess would be Tyrannosaurus rex or one of the other giant bipedal carnivores with little arms.

no no, longest arms.

I don't know why but I just love that idea. It just shows what amazing paths the undirected process of evolution leads to given enough time.

the boundary between birds and other dinosaurs is really fuzzy. there's some though that early dinosaurs fluctuated between flying and non-flying forms, and early birds might have evolved from several different lineages of dinosaurs. modern birds all come from something like gansus, but where do the opposite birds come from? you also have to remember that birds were highly, highly modern as early as the cretaceous, so the latest dinosaurs were living alongside essentially modern birds.

Alternatively it shows how incredibly complex the history of life on earth is and how difficult it is for us to reconstruct it properly from the snapshots we find in the fossil record.

we've got a lot of information, yes, but it's hard to put together a good picture of what happened. it's clear there was a transition, and we have some idea what's related to what, but the tree looks to be very complex indeed.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by MangyTiger, posted 09-09-2006 3:16 PM MangyTiger has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
91011
12
1314Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018