|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What drove bird evolution? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
a beak ( since it will no longer have arms or hands with which to feed itself), Isn't that a claim debunked by the existance of birds without beaks? Of course, they have claws on their wings. But one hardly has to posit a beak as necessary for flight.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
specialized flow-through design heart and lungs
what? Perhaps he's referring to some ability birds have to let air from their lungs flow out their anuses. They would be much like Redwolf himself in this regard, if they could do that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Why and how would anything which didn't fly end up with them and how would anything which did fly (the way birds do) function without them? Why do flightless birds have them, then?
beaks same thing Not same thing. Not all birds have beaks, remember?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
In real life, you not only cannot evolve a complex capability, but having lost the tiniest bit of such a capability, you can't ever even get the tiny bit back. How about those stick insects, that evolved wings, lost them, and then evolved them again?
If the chicken can't make it that final quarter inch, how is the "bird ancestor" supposed to make it the thousand miles?? I wasn't aware there was a selection pressure on chickens for flight. How about that beak thing? You keep ignoring the fact that not all birds had beaks. Oh, and if you're going to talk about that ridiculous fiction of "changing gravity", do you suppose that you could address my standing rebuttals in the thread in which we discussed it? Thanks... This message has been edited by crashfrog, 07-14-2004 02:50 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Sorry, but I never saw one that didn't and google searches on "beakless bird" don't turn up anything meaningful or anything indicating that such actually exist. Remind me not to hire you in any research capacity. You're telling me you've never heard of Archaeopteryx, the most famous prehistoric bird? Here's a link you can go to you rectify your most unfortunate ignorance:
All About Archaeopteryx As you can see, Archaeopteryx has no bill.
The basic reality is that the question is no longer even about whether or not gravity changed, but over what caused it. Then why were you so woefully impotent when it came to substantiating your claims in the other thread? Hell, I'm no expert, but I single-handedly rebutted your sauropod arguments. I note that my rebuttal has recieved no substantial response from you to date.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
ouy of curiosity, what bird lacks a beak? Archaeopteryx, of course. Moreover, every fetal bird lacks a beak; first they grow tooth buds. These buds have no connection to any beak feature in any bird but are present, prenatally, nonetheless. The simplest explanation for them is the evolutionary one; i.e. that birds are descended from organisms who had teeth and not bills.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
The simplest explaination for them is the possible one, i.e. that birds were genetically re-engineered from some previous creature Sure. Since the "genetic engineer" you refer to can only be natural processes, you've essentially repeated the evolutionary explanation with different language. Birds indeed were "genetically re-engineered" in the same way a lot of engineers are engineering things these days - natural selection and random mutation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
"can only be a natural process"? Why's that?? Because the only two observed entities with the design power to do the job are natural processes and humans, and humans simply weren't there at the time.
Recent studies in fact indicate that humans appear to have been fabricated using the same techniques which we ourselves are now starting to use in bio-engineering projects Right, fabricated by natural processes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
(and i'd be more willing to call it a dinosaur than a bird, since it lacks several important bird features) Most of the literature I've read classifies it as bird and not dinosaur, but it's sufficiently transitional that there's no simple way to choose where to put it. That, of course, is the strongest argument for evolution, and also the strongest argument against Redwolf's position - either Archaeopteryx is a bird who lacks many of the features RW claims birds couldn't survive without, or it's a non-bird with many of the features RW claimed would be survival liabilities in a non-bird.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
The original discovery involved several tens of thousands of the things; nobody ever did that much work on the off chance that gringos might be willing to buy all of them, i.e. on pure speculation. Are you kidding? The guy who spearheaded the operation says that it was his village's cottage industry. Moreover, read the story of their "discovery":
quote: from Page not found | Skeptical Inquirer So, in fact your claim is quite incorrect; they did know that at least one gullible gringo (besides yourself) wanted them and would pay for them. It wasn't simply speculation; it was their direct observation. The stones have never been dated so it's impossible to say when they were carved. Moreover, the pictures on them are not accurate depictions of dinosaurs, generally, but rather about what you'd expect if the only dinosaur you ever saw was on TV or in a kid's book:
quote: Carving one of those things would take weeks and God knows what it would take to carve one and then try to make it appear ancient as they all do. But here's the thing - none of the Ica stones are carved:
quote: There's certainly nothing difficult about using sandpaper and other tools to grind off a layer of soft oxidation. As for the appearance of "ancient age":
quote: So, in other words, the source of the stones' apparent age, much like the rest of your claims and your general behavior on this board, is chicken shit.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
This simply isn't a substantial refutation. The stones aren't carved, they're graved. Graving is a simple matter and it certainly wouldn't have taken an entire villiage "23 years" to engrave all these stones, particularly with modern tools and sandpaper, the marks of which were found on the stones.
Your article substantiates the stones in absolutely no tangible way. That they are forgeries is the inescapable conclusion of anyone with sense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
CSICOP debunked What on Earth would that have to do with anything? Maybe you didn't read the bibliography at the bottom of the article:
quote: These are the sources you must address, not CSICOP.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
There is a petroglyph in Natural Bridges National Monument that bears a startling resemblance to dinosaur, specifically a Brontosaurus There's no such dinosaur. As someone once said "Once somebody's been shown to be an ideologue and a liar, you don't have to go on checking his pronouncements... "
holding his neck outwards would be impossible because it would involve hundreds of thousands of foot pounds of torque. Oh, right - just like this picture must be fake: After all, holding that arm out must involve millions of foot-pounds of torque. That's simply not possible under our current gravity, right? Then what is that a picture of?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Once somebody's been shown to be an ideologue and a liar, you don't have to go on checking his pronouncements... The problem is, these aren't the pronouncements of CSICOP. They were merely compiled by that organization. These are the sources you must rebut:
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Mechanical cranes have the structural support (cables) to handle large torque loads. A sauropod dinosaur's neck did not. That's simply a false claim. Sauropod necks did indeed have structural cables to handle those torque loads. They're called "tendons." So, we're pretty much back to where we were in the other thread. I predict you'll stop responding to my posts because that's exactly what you did the last time we got to this point - I had destroyed your sauropod claim, and you had no rebuttal except to mention how you don't talk to idiots, or some such. Does it ever bother you that what is apparently your life's work can be so easily destroyed by punk kids on the internet with no college degree, like myself? Man, that would burn me up.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024