|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2521 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Archaeopteryx and Dino-Bird Evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: Actually, all Darwin required was that (1) physical characteristics are inherited, (2) that new characteristics can arise, and (3) that some new characteristics will give to the individuals that possess them an advantage in surviving and leaving behind offspring. All of these things have been observed. The exact mechanisms for the inheritence are unimportant. This is getting far from the topic of archaeopteryx; maybe I will start a new thread concerning evolution in general and invite you to participate. -
quote: The human appendix serves no known function. At any rate it is not necessary that there be no function, just that the organ no longer serves its original function. (Jaws, by the way, are vestigial gills.) This, too, is getting far off the topic of archaeopteryx. You are welcome to start a new thread on vestigial organs if you wish. -
quote: This is off the topic of archaeopteryx, as well as irrelevant to what I said in my previous post. "Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure." -- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3976 Joined: |
It seems that the topic title "Archaeopteryx and Dino-Bird Evolution" pretty well defines the topic theme. All messages should have some pretty direct connection to that theme. Messages that do not should find a better home elsewhere.
Adminnemooseus Added by edit: Posted this message prior to seeing message 106. Perhaps this message is redundant to that message 106. This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 05-03-2006 06:00 PM New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures Thread Reopen Requests Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, Assistance w/ Forum Formatting, Proposed New (Great Debate) Topics, Official Invitations to Online Chat@EvC |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2521 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
Is that really what's going on? If so, where is the overwhelming evidence that would definatley present itself if it were?
Umm, every single fossil... every single living thing on the planet... that's a lot of evidence. Or are you asking for evidence which is neither fossil nor living? Could you give us an example of exactly what it is you are looking for? What, for you, would be proof of macro-evolution? Be realistic - not, "I want to see a pegasus." Do you want more primative forms than Archie? Maybe more advanced forms? Would you be satified with dino-like lizard with downy feathers and no flight feather? Would you be satified with a flying, "modern" bird with a claw at the tip of its wing? Before you jump up and down and proclaim that there is no evidence, pony up and explain exactly what you want to see.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Yo, nemesis,
you state:
quote: I replied to it in a subsequent post, but it would be off topic to continue in that vein. So I invite you to new thread to discuss the generalities of the theory of evolution. "Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure." -- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
quote: Physical characteristics are inherited, however, if your father worked out every day of his life before you were born, you are not going to come out muscular. He might have had a predisposition towards being muscular, and you may or may not inherit that. But the belief that working out affects your children in utero is wholly unfactual. This is the same thing for any person who flaps their arms in hopes of flying their whole life, that might somehow 'evolve' wings. This is what macroevolution is essentially claiming. Think about Archaeopteryx being the missing link. That would mean that he develpoed all of these wonderful contrivances in one felled swoop or that he evolved slowly with stump-like appendages. But what conceivable relevance do nubs have while he was in transitional limbo? What prompted the alleges changes to occur at all?
quote: Sure, that'd be fine with me.
quote: For face value, I'd agree with you. I have had my appendix removed and since then, I haven't appeared to suffer any sort of adverse reaction because of it. We've all heard the proposition of appendices being apart of evolutionary function because they serve alot of useful purpose in lower animals to break down tough fibre, such as bark. The problem it presents in the standard Darwinian model is that it doesn't explain why appendices are present in certain mammals, and not others. As well, speaking from a naturalistic point of view, the prevailing wisdom cannot account for why it is first present in some marsupial animals like the wombat, but absent in all the mammals between the wombat and man. Some doctors theorize that its functionality lies with its ability in lymphnode function. This small organ might principally lie in its contributions to the digestive and lymphatic systems, but this is purely speculative at this point. In any case, if this is the crown jewel for Darwinian macroevolution, then you'll have to excuse me for not starting a slow clap over it.
quote: Jaws are vestigial gills???? Did I understand that correctly?
quote: I'm just following the dialogue wherever it may lead.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
That would mean that he develpoed all of these wonderful contrivances in one felled swoop or that he evolved slowly with stump-like appendages. What leads you to believe that the transitional appendage between "leg" and "wing" is "stump"? I mean, did that make sense when you typed it, or what? I just don't follow.
The problem it presents in the standard Darwinian model is that it doesn't explain why appendices are present in certain mammals, and not others. As well, speaking from a naturalistic point of view, the prevailing wisdom cannot account for why it is first present in some marsupial animals like the wombat, but absent in all the mammals between the wombat and man. Do you have a citation for this? My own brief research seems to confirm what I initally suspected - you're completely wrong. From what I can tell, appendectal vermiform processes are present in lieu of the cecum of all mammals who don't have a cellulose-heavy diet. You're entitled to your opinion, of course; not to your own facts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
quote: Every single fossil shows evidence of evolution? If that were the case, then why has prominent evolutionists made claims such as: “Not one change into another is on record . we cannot prove that a single species has been changed.” -Charles Darwin 110 years later: “The absence of fossil evidence has been a persistent problem for evolution.”-Dr. Steven J. Gould The reason that there aren't any transitional forms is the reason why punctuated equilibrium had to be invented. Its a theory that attempts to cover up another theory. They are making excuses for other excuses. In respect to this, I then direct you to heed the wise words of Fred Hoyle: “Be suspicious of a theory if more and more hypothesis are needed to support it.”
quote: I was asking for either, not neither. Just show us something.
quote: That be kind of hard to describe, being that it doesn't exist. But if I had to conceptualize it, it would all be dependent on the organism.
quote: Realistically, it would have to be recognizable enough to know that it was directly related another specie, but that it now fits into a new genera or order. A new specie is kind of silly because if that didn't happen we'd all be carbon copies of one another. Let me assure you, I'm not expecting Pegasus.
quote: The thing is, I'm of the belief that if we are evolving in any way, we are physically devolving. So, any evolutionary advancement into greater and more highly intelligent creatures would be fantastic as far as proof is concerned. Maybe I need to give you a little background. I used to be an evolutionist. I left it after some serious investigation. If I was forced to label myself anything, I would label myself a creationist, but perhaps you might be more interested in knowing that I just want the truth, whatever it may be. In my best judgement, macroevolution has been falsified. That's where I'm at in my life.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 763 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Some doctors theorize that its functionality lies with its ability in lymphnode function.
A pretty durn minor functionality, apparently, since the human appendix has about as many "Peyer's patches" per square centimeter as any of the adjacent small intestine does. But not very many square centimeters....
but absent in all the mammals between the wombat and man. Nope.
A vermiform appendix is not unique to humans. It is found in all the hominoid apes, including humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, and gibbons, and it exists to varying degrees in several species of New World and Old World monkeys. And see Vestigiality of the human appendix for some more detail on appendicular vestigiality.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5900 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
You can't win Coragyps. He's got the Revised Quote Book and is already on the "H"'s.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2521 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
it would have to be recognizable enough to know that it was directly related another specie, but that it now fits into a new genera or order Okay, so let's nail this down. It sounds like you are looking for an organism which would show features which are specific to one group of animals, yet also show features specifically not present in that same group. In other words - if we look at birds, there are a few key features. All birds have feathers for example. Also, only birds have feathers. So feathers is a very good indicator that something is a bird. According to that, Archie is a bird. However, all birds have beaks. Now, not only birds have beaks (for example turtles and squids have beaks and neither are related to birds), but if you have an example of a modern bird you can assume it has a beak. Now, that's a little strange, because Archie - which because of it's feathers, we've already established is a bird - it doesn't have a beak. It has teeth. But there are no birds with teeth. So... is it a bird? Is it not a bird? If archie was a stand alone fossil, maybe we'd be left scratching our heads. But it's not alone. There are dozens (hundreds?) of examples of animal predating and postdating Archaeoptryx. The one's predating have less in common with modern birds. The one's post dating have more in common with modern birds. I'd say that pretty much sums up what you are asking for. Now, can you show me an example of a species which has suddenly popped into existance with absolutely no evidence of any earlier species being related to it at all?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
Of all of the primates, appendices are present in certain lemurs, four types of anthropoid apes, and humans. However, its absent in monkeys. Certain old, nor new world monkeys have an appendix. This doesn't seem to make sense if we are to follow the evolutionary advancement. This seems to jump around quite a bit. The way it jumps around doesn't fit any preconcieved notions of a gradualistic progression, via evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
In my best judgement, macroevolution has been falsified. That's where I'm at in my life. Mmm... I'm beginning to think this 'devolving' idea of yours may have some merit after all. That is to say, some evidence, at the very least. "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin. Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 763 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
This doesn't seem to make sense if we are to follow the evolutionary advancement. Here may be your problem, nem j! "Evolutionary advancement" sounds like a "great chain of being" argument: a progression from the lowly worm to the exalted philosopher. It ain't like that. Each lineage - capuchin vs howler monkeys, for instance - has its own history, and each is just as "advanced" as the other. All have evolved to end up where they are this week. Apparently the vermiform appendix is of little enough consequence in primates that various of us can fail to develop one with no serious repercussions. I'd love to see a species-by-species breakdown of which primates have one and which don't. I'll bet that the distribution tracks lineages, just as you note that it does in the four anthropoids.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5900 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
I'd love to see a species-by-species breakdown of which primates have one and which don't. I'll bet that the distribution tracks lineages, just as you note that it does in the four anthropoids. Guess what? You're right (doesn't it feel good to be justified?). Try Scott, GB 1980, "The primate caecum and appendix vermiformis: a comparative study.", J. of Anatomy 131:549-63 quote: I think it's very interesting that this author downplays the "vestigial" nature of the appendix in certain primates. However, I think he's using a misleading definition of vestigial. As you suggested, it depends on the lineage - and the diet to which they are adapted. For instance, colubine monkeys (old world), are primarily folivores and have developed a foregut digestive system - completely doing away with an appendix, which the lineage never developed (although it does have a caecum). Another major lineage of folivorous monkeys - the Cebidae (new world) - are hindgut fermenters and have only a caecum. Great apes appear to be the only lineage of primates that have developed an appendix. (see, for example, BANR 2003, "Nutrient Requirements of Non-Human Primates", NAP, ppg 22-26). In humans, out of all the hominins, the appendix is highly reduced, probably related to the change in diet when our ancestors left the forest for savannah in the Pliocene. Although still serving a dietary function in the great apes, the only apparent function in humans is as a small part of our immune system - IOW a coopted function, which is my definition of vestigial.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminJar Inactive Member |
The appendix has nothing to do with the topic unless you can show that birds or Archie have one.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024