|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: IC & the Cambrian Explosion for Ahmad...cont.. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7665 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Peter,
quote: 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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7665 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: 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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: 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: Thanks for the tip.
quote: And you have what? A myth that requires various and sundry miracles in order to occur. Yep, that makes sense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7665 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Well, I am glad we cleared that up. Now did you have some relevant point to make here?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7665 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Peter,
quote: 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: Based on the prediction that major taxa are related by common descent, & there should be specimens that are transitional between taxa.
quote: 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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7665 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Peter,
quote: 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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1876 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1876 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: 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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Hmm, not sure who said this...
quote: 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: LOL! According some analyses, humans could be equated with bacteria. This is a simplistic approach that I am surprised you would bring up.
quote: The problem you have is that there is more than taxonomy involved here.
quote: 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: 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024