Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


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


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   IC & the Cambrian Explosion for Ahmad...cont..
peter borger
Member (Idle past 7665 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 76 of 199 (30677)
01-30-2003 7:07 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by edge
01-30-2003 12:19 AM


No Edge, they also has some fully developed birds, including the Archeopteryx lithographica, Sinorsis sinensis, and Confuciusornis sanctus. Very nice fully developed birds.
Bestwishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by edge, posted 01-30-2003 12:19 AM edge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by mark24, posted 01-30-2003 9:20 AM peter borger has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 77 of 199 (30689)
01-30-2003 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by peter borger
01-30-2003 7:07 AM


Peter,
quote:
No Edge, they also has some fully developed birds, including the Archeopteryx lithographica, Sinorsis sinensis, and Confuciusornis sanctus. Very nice fully developed birds.
Archaeopteryx is a reptile! It has a pubic peduncle, a long bony tail, & abdominal ribs which are absent in birds. Some therapods must've had feathers, that's all.
The other two examples are from the cretaceous & are still less derived than modern birds.
Obviously, there's going to have to be a point where we stop calling a therapod a therapod, & call it a bird. But, just because we call it a bird doesn't mean it's characters aren't intermediate.
Post 65 please.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-30-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by peter borger, posted 01-30-2003 7:07 AM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by peter borger, posted 01-30-2003 7:28 PM mark24 has replied

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 7665 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 78 of 199 (30770)
01-30-2003 7:28 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by mark24
01-30-2003 9:20 AM


Hi mark,
MP: Archaeopteryx is a reptile!
PB: Yeah, and my dog is a reptile too!
Listen, Mark, by now you should be able to understand that I do NOT believe a single word of evolutinism from microbe to man.
It is never observed storytelling for the gullible. Major actors in the play: Richard Dawkins, Bob Bakker, and the major part of science fiction writers.
Best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by mark24, posted 01-30-2003 9:20 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by mark24, posted 01-30-2003 7:42 PM peter borger has not replied
 Message 80 by edge, posted 01-30-2003 9:23 PM peter borger has replied
 Message 87 by nator, posted 01-31-2003 9:06 AM peter borger has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 79 of 199 (30775)
01-30-2003 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by peter borger
01-30-2003 7:28 PM


quote:
MP: Archaeopteryx is a reptile!
PB: Yeah, and my dog is a reptile too!
Listen, Mark, by now you should be able to understand that I do NOT believe a single word of evolutinism from microbe to man.
Peter,
Methinks you miss the point. A "fully developed bird" has what characteristics exactly? Feathers? A keeled sternum? Hypotarsus? Abdominal ribs, etc? Since you refuse to answer the question, "what represents a transitional form as predicted by the ToE", it is difficult to take your objections seriously.
I have given you a definition of transitional form in a previous post, kindly do the same so we can advance the discussion, after you have looked "objectively" at the issue, of course, which you promised to do.
Whether you "believe" the microbe to man evolution"ism" (whatever that is), is irrelevant. The issue is, do transitional forms predicted by the ToE exist, or not. But, like I say, you need to provide a definition of the ToE's prediction of "transitional form" before we can continue.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-30-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by peter borger, posted 01-30-2003 7:28 PM peter borger has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by derwood, posted 01-31-2003 9:52 AM mark24 has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 80 of 199 (30783)
01-30-2003 9:23 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by peter borger
01-30-2003 7:28 PM


quote:
MP: Archaeopteryx is a reptile!
PB: Yeah, and my dog is a reptile too!
Ooh, another coherrent argument from Peter! Why don't you admit it. Whenever you are faced with a transitional, you simply define it out of existence...
quote:
Listen, Mark, by now you should be able to understand that I do NOT believe a single word of evolutinism from microbe to man.
Thanks for the tip.
quote:
It is never observed storytelling for the gullible. Major actors in the play: Richard Dawkins, Bob Bakker, and the major part of science fiction writers.
And you have what? A myth that requires various and sundry miracles in order to occur. Yep, that makes sense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by peter borger, posted 01-30-2003 7:28 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by peter borger, posted 01-30-2003 9:45 PM edge has replied
 Message 89 by derwood, posted 01-31-2003 9:58 AM edge has replied

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 7665 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 81 of 199 (30786)
01-30-2003 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by edge
01-30-2003 9:23 PM


Dear Edge and mark,
YOU are the gullible, NOT me.
Best wishes,
Peter
"If they're hungry feed them bugger and they will eat it"
From BBB

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by edge, posted 01-30-2003 9:23 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by edge, posted 01-30-2003 9:49 PM peter borger has replied
 Message 84 by mark24, posted 01-31-2003 5:33 AM peter borger has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 82 of 199 (30787)
01-30-2003 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by peter borger
01-30-2003 9:45 PM


quote:
Dear Edge and mark,
YOU are the gullible, NOT me.
Best wishes,
Peter
Well, I am glad we cleared that up. Now did you have some relevant point to make here?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by peter borger, posted 01-30-2003 9:45 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by peter borger, posted 01-30-2003 11:20 PM edge has replied

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 7665 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 83 of 199 (30792)
01-30-2003 11:20 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by edge
01-30-2003 9:49 PM


Dear Edge,
Pondering the Archeaoptehryx being a reptile. A transition form somewnere between reptile/dinosaur and bird?
Based on what I wonder?
According to histon H2 analysis my wife could be a fish or a bird.
Stil I know she is a human MPG. That is all there is MPGs.
Taxonomy is human subjectivity.
Furthermore, over the past couple of centuries 3 (or 4) Archaeopteryx have been found.
All, Archaeopteryx lithographica.
Why, I wonder, did we find 4 Archaeopteryx lithographica?
Wy didn't we find the 'Archaeopteryx pseudornis', the Archaeopteryx ornis, and the Archaeopteryx euornis. Than you would have had a compelling case for evolutionism. Now you have nothing, except the Archaeopteryx (MPG).
Best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by edge, posted 01-30-2003 9:49 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by edge, posted 01-31-2003 10:07 AM peter borger has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 84 of 199 (30809)
01-31-2003 5:33 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by peter borger
01-30-2003 9:45 PM


Peter,
quote:
Dear Edge and mark,
YOU are the gullible, NOT me.
Please tell us what you would expect a transitional form to look like from the ToE's perspective, ie, define it. You're beginning to to look silly, remember all those points you refused to answer in the other thread? That's why I stopped getting involved with your "GUToB", you make unwarranted extrapolations & then refuse to address any criticism, which you allegedly came here for. It's the same here, you're telling me on one hand that evolution is falsified, yet refuse to objectively examine evidence of it. That is; if you don't define transitional, you don't have to accept that such a thing exists. Fine by me, Peter, keep your head in the sand, but it's you that everyone can see equivocating, not me. I have done everything you asked me to. Your turn.
quote:
Pondering the Archeaoptehryx being a reptile. A transition form somewnere between reptile/dinosaur and bird?
Based on what I wonder?
Based on the prediction that major taxa are related by common descent, & there should be specimens that are transitional between taxa.
quote:
All, Archaeopteryx lithographica.
Why, I wonder, did we find 4 Archaeopteryx lithographica? Wy didn't we find the 'Archaeopteryx pseudornis', the Archaeopteryx ornis, and the Archaeopteryx euornis. Than you would have had a compelling case for evolutionism. Now you have nothing, except the Archaeopteryx (MPG).
What about Archaeopterix bavarica does that count (Wellnhofer 1993)? Well, that's that cleared up, Peter agrees we have a compelling case for evolution. And you are conveniently forgetting the other feathered transitionals, Sinosauropteryx, Caudipteryx, Protoarchaopteryx et al. Plus the dromaeosaurs like Deinonychus & "Fuzzy-raptor" with their "unbranched integumentary structures" & "perfectly preserved downy feathers".
So, last chance to be taken seriously; define transitional form as predicted by the ToE.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-31-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by peter borger, posted 01-30-2003 9:45 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by peter borger, posted 01-31-2003 7:25 AM mark24 has replied

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 7665 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 85 of 199 (30813)
01-31-2003 7:25 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by mark24
01-31-2003 5:33 AM


Dear mark,
MP: What about Archaeopterix bavarica does that count (Wellnhofer 1993)? Well, that's that cleared up, Peter agrees we have a compelling case for evolution. And you are conveniently forgetting the other feathered transitionals, Sinosauropteryx, Caudipteryx, Protoarchaopteryx et al. Plus the dromaeosaurs like Deinonychus & "Fuzzy-raptor" with their "unbranched integumentary structures" & "perfectly preserved downy feathers".
PB: The A bavarica is simply a specimen that demonstrates more details than the other specimen. Or as stated by the German expert Dr Milner (http://141.84.51.10/palaeo_de/Archaeo/darchae3.htm):
"Das Exemplar von Archaeopteryx bavarica ist einzigartig.
PB A unique specimen...
Es zeigt anatomische Merkmale ...,
PB: ...with anatomical characteristics
...die bei den anderen Exemplaren nicht beobachtbar sind
PB: ...not visable in other specimen.
...und die entscheidend sind fr unser Verstndnis des Ursprungs und der Evolution der Vgel.
PB: ...and decisive for our understanding of the origin and evolution of birds (Evo blahblah).
Es ist sehr gut erhalten und hat Ausstellungsqualitt.
PB: It is very well preserved and of exposition quality.
So, nothing new, no transtion form or other species of Archaeopteryx. It is just another Archaeopteryx (MPG).
Best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by mark24, posted 01-31-2003 5:33 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by mark24, posted 01-31-2003 8:56 AM peter borger has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 86 of 199 (30814)
01-31-2003 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by peter borger
01-31-2003 7:25 AM


Peter,
quote:
PB: The A bavarica is simply a specimen that demonstrates more details than the other specimen. Or as stated by the German expert Dr Milner
That would be "different details" that warrant the specimen being given it's own special taxon.
Archaeopterix bavarica has been given it's own species designation within the genus. The reason for this is because it is an adult bird as indicated by it's ossified sternum, & is distinctively small relative to an adult lithographica It's legs & tibia are proportionately longer, too. It has nothing to do with how well it has been preserved. The other 6 specimens appear to be different ages of the same species.
You're still ignoring the other species, & you still haven't defined "transitional form" in a ToE context.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-31-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by peter borger, posted 01-31-2003 7:25 AM peter borger has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 87 of 199 (30815)
01-31-2003 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by peter borger
01-30-2003 7:28 PM


quote:
MP: Archaeopteryx is a reptile!
PB: Yeah, and my dog is a reptile too!
Wow, I didn't know that reptiles produced milk, gave birth to live young, are warm-blooded, and have fur all over their bodies.
...wait a minute!
Those aren't the characteristics of a reptile...
That's a MAMMAL!
Gee, since when do reptiles have the same characteristics of mammals, Peter?
Probably the same time that where the foramen magnum is located on a skull doesn't indicate how upright the animal locomotes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by peter borger, posted 01-30-2003 7:28 PM peter borger has not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 88 of 199 (30824)
01-31-2003 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by mark24
01-30-2003 7:42 PM


quote:
Mark:
Methinks you miss the point. A "fully developed bird" has what characteristics exactly? Feathers? A keeled sternum? Hypotarsus? Abdominal ribs, etc? Since you refuse to answer the question, "what represents a transitional form as predicted by the ToE", it is difficult to take your objections seriously.
Interestingly, a colleague of mine, an ornithologist, gave a talk yesterday about the evolution of birds.
Ornithologists seem to consider Archie a bird, albeit with reptilian features.
The fact that, as is apparent by the differing opinions expressed by, for example, my colleague and Mark, it is so difficult to reach definite conclusions about fossils like Archis is strong support for evolution.
If there were "archetypes" or "created kinds", it stands to reason that any and all extant (or extinct) organisms should easily fit within a certain 'type'.
Evolution predicts a continuum, and Archie and other reptile-like birds (or bird-like reptiles) fit nicely within that framework.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by mark24, posted 01-30-2003 7:42 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by mark24, posted 01-31-2003 11:39 AM derwood has replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 89 of 199 (30826)
01-31-2003 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by edge
01-30-2003 9:23 PM


quote:
And you (Boger) have what? A myth that requires various and sundry miracles in order to occur. Yep, that makes sense.
You forgot the mysterious particles that have no evidence in uspport of their existence - the ever elusive CREATON, and of course, the ever popular (but apparently made-up) MORPHOGENIC FIELD!
OOOOOO scarrrrry!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by edge, posted 01-30-2003 9:23 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by edge, posted 01-31-2003 10:11 AM derwood has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 90 of 199 (30828)
01-31-2003 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by peter borger
01-30-2003 11:20 PM


quote:
Pondering the Archeaoptehryx being a reptile.
Hmm, not sure who said this...
quote:
A transition form somewnere between reptile/dinosaur and bird?
Based on what I wonder?
Well, certainly not on characteristics you would deem important. I'm sure that you'd rather ignore the features that are common with reptiles because that would contradict your notions.
quote:
According to histon H2 analysis my wife could be a fish or a bird.
LOL! According some analyses, humans could be equated with bacteria. This is a simplistic approach that I am surprised you would bring up.
quote:
Taxonomy is human subjectivity.
The problem you have is that there is more than taxonomy involved here.
quote:
Furthermore, over the past couple of centuries 3 (or 4) Archaeopteryx have been found.
All, Archaeopteryx lithographica.
Why, I wonder, did we find 4 Archaeopteryx lithographica?
Well, gee, I wonder why we find only find carbon-based life forms (since you like simplistic arguments). Maybe they are just fakes. Typical of creationists, you would rather try to make up a story that focusses more on what is not known that what IS known, and at the same time ignoring some important information that is also known.
quote:
Wy didn't we find the 'Archaeopteryx pseudornis', the Archaeopteryx ornis, and the Archaeopteryx euornis. Than you would have had a compelling case for evolutionism. Now you have nothing, except the Archaeopteryx (MPG).
As well as other lines of evidence including other transitional fossils and known ages for them. Now, I understand that to an absolutist, this would never do, but the rest of us believe that it is desirable and possible to create a workable explanation until we get more data to the contrary.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by peter borger, posted 01-30-2003 11:20 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by peter borger, posted 02-06-2003 11:14 PM edge has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024