Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9174 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,609 Year: 4,866/9,624 Month: 214/427 Week: 24/103 Day: 4/9 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution Logic
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1488 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 211 of 302 (320100)
06-10-2006 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Someone who cares
06-08-2006 7:52 PM


The essay -- the problems start at the very beginning.
Looks like this thread is devolving into "What is Wrong With SWC's Essay" so maybe we should take it a step at a time to show the logical fallacies and erroneous information.
Evolution - true or false? Have you ever wondered? Are you unsure of the answer? Do you think you know the answer, but are really doubting the validity of it? Have you been taught your whole life that evolution is true, but inside, you are really doubtful? Read on to understand the problem, and find the answer you really need. In our quest for the answer, we will cover a wide range or aspects of evolution. Not all evolutionists hold all the beliefs we will look at now, but most do. We will explore: the finds of the fossil record, natural selection, hominid finds, the geologic column, probabilities for evolution, the primitive environment with the first evolutionary developments, vestigial organs, mutations, rock dating methods, and much more.
Ever wondered what an argument from incredulity looked like? This first paragraph is nothing but fluff and the assertion that the author actually knows something that the reader does not. As we shall see (if we haven't already) this is a false assumption.
The outstanding falsehood here is that evolution is based on beliefs rather than the scientific study of evidence and the corroboration of theory by test after test after test.
Thus the first paragraph is based on a false premise.
So, what is evolution? Evolution is the popular belief that a unicellular organism or something even simpler evolved, over time, to form all that we see today; that being: animals, humans, plants, etc.
Wrong again. We are talking about a science not a "popular belief" -- science based on factual evidence.
Evolution is the theory of change in species over time. As time passes more changes will be accumulated. This is all that is necessary for evolution to be "true" (although theories are not ever regarded as "true" by scientists, just corroborated by evidence and repeated testing; theories can be invalidated at any time by new evidence, but "truth" cannot - by definition eh?).
This is not a "belief" system -- let's look at the definition of
belief n
1: any cognitive content held as true [ant: unbelief]
2: a vague idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying" [syn: impression, feeling, notion, opinion]
Now lets look at the definition of
sci·ence n.
1. a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
1. b. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
1. c. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
2. Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.
3. An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.
No "belief" involved.
Thus this is a mischaracterization of the science of evolution, it is a falsehood. One cannot expect a valid argument about a topic when the topic is defined incorrectly.
Either the author does not understand the topic enough to define it properly, and thus will be unable to talk intelligently about it,
Or the author is purposely misrepresenting the topic, and thus will misrepresent anything else he needs to in order to make whatever point he intends with such misrepresentation,
Or the author is ignorant of the proper definition, and thus is likely to be ignorant of any other related issue,
Or the author is deluded into thinking this is the truth, in which case his delusions will likely color any thing else he says.
Based on just this part of the essay there is no reason to expect any valid argument from it.
This is actually evidence of someone who is careless in what they say.
Can such carelessness be defended?
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Someone who cares, posted 06-08-2006 7:52 PM Someone who cares has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by Chiroptera, posted 06-10-2006 6:49 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 249 by Someone who cares, posted 06-11-2006 12:38 AM RAZD has replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5931 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 212 of 302 (320111)
06-10-2006 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by jar
06-10-2006 6:31 PM


Re: on pairs and tells
We don't have a clue. But we are evolving. Remember, Evolution can best be seen looking backwards. It's a history of what did happen.
I disagree... We're devolving!
Like the 2nd law of thermodynamics. We're coming undone!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by jar, posted 06-10-2006 6:31 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by Chiroptera, posted 06-10-2006 6:50 PM Rob has not replied
 Message 215 by jar, posted 06-10-2006 6:51 PM Rob has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 213 of 302 (320114)
06-10-2006 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by RAZD
06-10-2006 6:38 PM


Re: The essay -- the problems start at the very beginning.
quote:
Wrong again. We are talking about a science not a "popular belief" -- science based on factual evidence.
Another error (although unrelated to your point -- sorry for the digression) is that evolution -- common descent, actually -- says that there is a single common ancestor for all life. Actually, the theory of evolution merely asserts that the species in a given major taxon has a common ancestor -- but all known life may have had several ancestors.
The idea that there is only a single common ancestory is based on empirical observation, but is not necessary to the theory of evolution.

"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the same sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."
-- H. L. Mencken (quoted on Panda's Thumb)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by RAZD, posted 06-10-2006 6:38 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by RAZD, posted 06-10-2006 6:56 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 214 of 302 (320115)
06-10-2006 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by Rob
06-10-2006 6:45 PM


Re: on pairs and tells
quote:
I disagree... We're devolving!
I don't know about you, but I made a lot of progess since the days I was a simple single cell travelling down my mama's Fallopian tube.

"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the same sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."
-- H. L. Mencken (quoted on Panda's Thumb)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Rob, posted 06-10-2006 6:45 PM Rob has not replied

jar
Member
Posts: 34056
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 215 of 302 (320116)
06-10-2006 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by Rob
06-10-2006 6:45 PM


Re: on pairs and tells
There is no such thing as devolving. It's all evolving no matter what direction.
And the 2nd. Law of Thermodynamics has nothing to do with evolution. We have lots of threads here on that.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Rob, posted 06-10-2006 6:45 PM Rob has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1488 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 216 of 302 (320119)
06-10-2006 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Someone who cares
06-08-2006 10:40 PM


Re: age of the earth ... again?
No, it is supported by facts, but I won't mention them here. Perhaps I will go to those forums you mentioned a little later and support this claim.
I doubt it. So far you have run from any discussion of actual evidence for anything. And that when others provide the evidence -- your record of substantiating any assertion you have made is zero.
Why no response on my suggestion to talk about simple speciation with an example?
You do agree that small changes do occur, what you call "changes in kind" or "micro"evolution, happens yes?
I've suggested we start with a simple example - Pelycodus, a small primate mammal that shows gradual increases in size and then a splitting into two groups:


(click to enlarge)

(Picture originally from A Smooth Fossil Transition: Pelycodus, a primate (click to see original picture) -- copied here to save bandwidth on the original site)
Do you or do you not agree that this is just normal speciation - that Pelycodus ralstoni evolved into Pelycodus trigonoodus which then evolved into Pelycodus jarrovii which then evolved into two species, Notharctus nunienus and Notharctus venticolus -- all by "micro"evolutionary changes, small changes where they remained essentially the same sort (kind) of organisms, yes?
Do you agree that this is no different than "dog is dog" variations? If no why not?
Once we have established the "micro"evolution aspects of the fossil record of events like this we can move on to the next level.
Or are you afraid of what the evidence will show?
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Someone who cares, posted 06-08-2006 10:40 PM Someone who cares has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by Someone who cares, posted 06-11-2006 12:48 AM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1488 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 217 of 302 (320123)
06-10-2006 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by Chiroptera
06-10-2006 6:49 PM


Re: The essay -- the problems start at the very beginning.
And protraying evolution as being common descent is making a strawman out of a molehill of incredulity eh?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by Chiroptera, posted 06-10-2006 6:49 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by Someone who cares, posted 06-11-2006 12:50 AM RAZD has replied

Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 5833 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 218 of 302 (320147)
06-10-2006 7:28 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by RAZD
06-09-2006 8:23 AM


Re: "Macro"evolution still undefined.
You have not demonstrated why it cannot be the accumulation of many "micro"evolutionary changes in species over time, and until you DO that you cannot CLAIM it is not such an accumulation.
Would you be willing to explain to me how tiny variations within the kind could accumulate to make a new kind?
This is a false statement, you have been corrected on it, so repeating it is just repeating your previous mistake.
Repeating false statements does not make them any more valid the second or the hundreth time it is repeated.
How have I been corected? I still repeat my claim, no one has yet shown me a transitional fossil that is undebatable, and no one can. Because the fossil record does indeed have "sudden" appearances of all the kinds of creatures. Like in the lowest layer, there are fully developed sponges, trilobites, jellyfish, worms, and other organisms, and this is the bottom of the geologic column!
Evolution is change in species over time. That is all there is. It happens on a species to species level. After species have diverged there is NO mechanism that prevents further changes in either species, but they will always be related back to the species where they separated ways.
Microevolution, what you just said about species changing is microevolution. But not the popular evolution belief, macroevolution. And yes, I have already gave my general definition from macroevolution, for what it WOULD be, please check back.
Is there any reason these two species at the end cannot diversify further? What is it and how does it operate?
The species can continue to have variation, within the kind. Look at a wolf, and look at a poodle, they sure do look different, don't they? But it's still a dog "kind." It's not like a dog evolved into a cat or something.
This is the second or third time that you have refused to substantiate an assertion of yours. A young earth is NOT supported by facts, the facts show just the opposite, and until you can show that is not so you are making an assertion that is contradicted by the facts (ie -- you are just plain wrong).
I said I would support my claim later, in a more suitable thread, and you still attack me. Please, have patience. I have enough on my hands with only two threads! And the facts do support a young earth, I will show you later in the thread for it. As the administrator said, this thread has gone way off topic, you are promoting it to go even more off topic. Let us not do this. Specific topics will go to specific threads, as this young earth thing.
Let me help remain with this topic by saying: Evolution logic? No, evolution is not logical. A single cell, forming into a human, and everything else, by chance, randomly, unguided by a Higher Being, is not logical. It defies all logic. That random, chance processes would make creatures able to make sounds, and make them also have ears to pick up those sounds. To make the sights, and to also make the eye to see them, by chance. To make the smell producing foods and flowers and trees, and to also make the nose to be able to sense these smells, by random chance. To make varying temperatures, and to make sensors in our bodies to be able to differentiate between the temperatures, by chance. To make food, and to make mouths and digestive systems to use to food for our survival, without guidance by a Higher Being. No my friends, evolution is not logical. Evolution could not do all this by chance, by random processes, unguided by a Higher Being. And did you know that the chance for the single living cell to form by chance, is mathematically impossible? You have to have a lot of faith in a theory that is mathematically impossible... That's why evolution is like a religion. It takes faith.
That is an assertion. You made an assertion, you failed to substantiate or to defend your assertion when challenged.
I didn't make an assertion. Please read over those posts. Someone said we cannot rely on AIG for information. I said, that I could use the same reasoning and say we cannot rely on TO. Pointing out how that reasoning could be flipped back at the person from the opposite view. So thus that claim shouldn't have been made, it could be used against the person making it.
I'll read it tonight just for fun, but you might want to post it to a new topic to see how well it stands up in the real world: anyone can post whatever they like on a website, there is no need for any of it to be true eh?
So far all I have seen is one argument from incredulity and ignorance after another. Yawn.
Oh, right. I'm sure that those many sources I used mean nothing to you? The Bibliography, the Works Cited?

"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by RAZD, posted 06-09-2006 8:23 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by Chiroptera, posted 06-10-2006 7:32 PM Someone who cares has not replied
 Message 220 by jar, posted 06-10-2006 7:53 PM Someone who cares has not replied
 Message 221 by crashfrog, posted 06-10-2006 7:58 PM Someone who cares has not replied
 Message 227 by RAZD, posted 06-10-2006 8:25 PM Someone who cares has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 219 of 302 (320158)
06-10-2006 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by Someone who cares
06-10-2006 7:28 PM


Re: "Macro"evolution still undefined.
quote:
Like in the lowest layer, there are fully developed sponges, trilobites, jellyfish, worms, and other organisms, and this is the bottom of the geologic column!
Actually, it's not. The fossil record extends farther into the past into the Precambrian. And molecular biology shows evidence that the origins of the major phyla may extend even farther into the past.

"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the same sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."
-- H. L. Mencken (quoted on Panda's Thumb)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Someone who cares, posted 06-10-2006 7:28 PM Someone who cares has not replied

jar
Member
Posts: 34056
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 220 of 302 (320175)
06-10-2006 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by Someone who cares
06-10-2006 7:28 PM


Just some more basics.
Like in the lowest layer, there are fully developed sponges, trilobites, jellyfish, worms, and other organisms, and this is the bottom of the geologic column!'
Okay, just a few points.
We don't know what the bottom of the geological column is, and it's even possible may never know since the surface gets recycled. But we do know of stuff that goes back long before sponges, trilobites, jellyfish and worms.
Second, you say "fully developed". Well, yes. That is exactly what we would expect to see. No one except the Biblical Creationists sites ever expects to see some critter that is not fully formed.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Someone who cares, posted 06-10-2006 7:28 PM Someone who cares has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1549 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 221 of 302 (320180)
06-10-2006 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by Someone who cares
06-10-2006 7:28 PM


Re: "Macro"evolution still undefined.
Would you be willing to explain to me how tiny variations within the kind could accumulate to make a new kind?
When one group acccumulates enough change that it's sufficiently different from other groups within the same kind, it's in a new kind. In other words:
We have a kind called "wobbles", containing all wobbles. Wobbles live in the east and the west, but they're all wobbles. But a mudslide seperates all the wobbles into two groups that, now, can't have anything to do with each other. The eastern wobbles change, over time, in different ways than the western wobbles do. The eastern wobbles become tall and thin, and the western wobbles become short and furry. Eventually the mudslide clears, but neither side recognizes the other as fellow wobbles - they're too different - and they keep their distance.
Where there was once only plain-old wobbles, taxonomists now recognize two new kinds of wobbles - Wobblus orientalis, the tall thin wobble, and Wobblus occidentalis, the short furry wobble. The wobble kind now contains two new kinds of wobbles. Wobbologists analyze their evolutionary history and discover that these two kinds of wobbles are both decended from a common ancestor, which was of the wobble kind but wasn't in either of the two current wobble sub-kinds.
What once might have been a species - wobble - is now a genus, the next-highest category, because it contains two kinds of its own, that are new. Both those new kinds of wobble arose from a kind that they still belong to, but an ancestor that wasn't a member of either of those kinds.
Hierarcheal classification of species. Pretty simple, when you think about it.
I still repeat my claim, no one has yet shown me a transitional fossil that is undebatable, and no one can.
Adelobasileus cromptoni. There. That's an undebateable transitional organism from the fossil record.
Someone said we cannot rely on AIG for information. I said, that I could use the same reasoning and say we cannot rely on TO.
No, you can't. You can't employ the same reasoning. The reason that you cannot rely on Answers in Genesis for information is because the "information" they promulgate is objectively wrong, a fact which they're aware of. It's definately been demonstrated to the AiG crew over and over again, so we know that they're dishonestly promulgating information that they know is wrong. Moreover, AiG does not employ persons who are experts in the fields in which they comment.
The same cannot be said of talkorigins.org. The information at talkorigins.org is objectively accurate, and when any inaccuracies are discovered, the talkorigins crew corrects them, regardless of who pointed out the error. The contributors to talkorigins are persons with advanced degrees and research experience in the fields in which they contribute.
Objectively, the information from AiG is not reliable, whereas the information from Talkorigins is. So you can't turn the reasoning around. You can't simply dismiss TO because they're pro-evolution, because we're not dismissing AiG simply because they oppose evolution. We dismiss AiG because their resources are objectively wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Someone who cares, posted 06-10-2006 7:28 PM Someone who cares has not replied

Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 5833 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 222 of 302 (320185)
06-10-2006 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by arachnophilia
06-09-2006 10:55 AM


Re: Great example
yet as even aig shows in another graphic, there is considerably more of the pakicetus skeleton than that:
I think you missed something. See, Gingerich probably did draw the picture with only two skull fragments. And later, someone found the whole skull or something. But we are speaking of Gingerich's picture, when speaking of the skull fragments. Sure, maybe later along the way, someone found the whole skull, or fake it, or something like that... Thanks for the picture, where did you get it? What is the source? Can we rely on it?
no, i emphasized a word for a reason. it's the important word. they are PECTORAL, not HIND limbs. they do not have ball and socket joints or kneecaps. no tetrapod -- including you -- has a ball and socket joint for your shoulder, and a kneecap in your elbow.
When I said knee cap I was referring to the hind legs, the part they haven't yet found. And, this may startle you, but yes, you do have a ball and socket joint for your shoulder, check out this site: Forbidden
Bet you didn't know that, huh? It's okay, we all make mistakes sometimes.
But my point was, you called it a pectoral fin, not a limb, or something. As someone claimed it was a leg.
so it's a fish, with a leg?
No, maybe that's not a leg at all. Or maybe, it didn't even belong to Tiktaliik. Or maybe, Tiktaliik is not a fish.
stubby legs that highly resemble lobed fins (as in a coelacanth) that would have been largely incapable of walking on land.
So it's not a fish with legs? Like someone said? Because legs have to be able to move a creature on land, you just said those "things" wouldn't be able to do that.
i did. there's a picture a few pages back.
I know, but I didn't see any hands or fingers.
i'll remember not to bring up chemistry or physics then.
Lol. Yes, thank you. Please don't, I don't know much about those topics! It would help to not bring them up!
if you found half a fish, would you be able to guess at what the rest looked like? if you found half a newt, would you be able to guess at what the rest looked like? if you found half something that looked like both a newt and a fish, would the rest of it be important to telling you it was something similar to both a fish and a newt?
See, if it were just half a fish, or just half a newt, we wouldn't really need the back end. But evolutionists are claiming it is a transitional fossil, a fish with legs, so the rear end is important to see if that is valid and true. Like it would tell us if the pelvis is connected to the vertebrae, if it had hind legs or just a tail, and more important information like that.

"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by arachnophilia, posted 06-09-2006 10:55 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by Coragyps, posted 06-10-2006 8:40 PM Someone who cares has not replied
 Message 243 by arachnophilia, posted 06-10-2006 10:51 PM Someone who cares has not replied

ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4193 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 223 of 302 (320199)
06-10-2006 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by crashfrog
06-10-2006 10:42 AM


Re: Defending plants
sorry at the time it was a bit late so it may not have been as deep as i wanted, i thought more on it and realized that they study how plants evolve natural defences we can use
I get it that plants are a lot less sexy, but if you like to eat, thank a plant and the people who study them. And they're no slouch in the features department, either.
i'd like to learn more about plants, the way they evolved from non-seed producers to seed producers was interesting
Norman Borlaug studied plants. As a result of what he learned he saved over a billion human lives. "Don't learn all that much?"
*shrug* i'll look that up then

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by crashfrog, posted 06-10-2006 10:42 AM crashfrog has not replied

ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4193 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 224 of 302 (320209)
06-10-2006 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by NosyNed
06-10-2006 2:48 PM


Re: Separate paths
This is not relevant to the comparison of eyes. If I recall correctly it is clear that the octocpus and human eye evolved separately. Eyes have evolved lots (don't remember the number --more than 10?) time.
no no i meant that comparing the two was not much of an arguement since the only relation was they where both forms of eyes and saw in color
The nature of the differences helps point that out. In addition the last common ancestors of octopi and mammals is so far back it is (I think) before eyes evolved. It would be in the Cambrian I believe.
i agree it was so far back its kind of irrelevent, since they are like comparing bats wings with birds wings

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by NosyNed, posted 06-10-2006 2:48 PM NosyNed has not replied

Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 5833 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 225 of 302 (320216)
06-10-2006 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by arachnophilia
06-09-2006 11:07 AM


the animal we were looking at is not a bird at all.
Ok, thanks for the info. But pterosaur is classified as an archosaur, which contains birds. But you're right, there's also crocodiles and dinosaurs in that category. So, you say this is a reptile-dinosaur type of creature?
actually, it is. it's hard to do it an be convincing. one, maybe, could be faked. but *all* the pterosaurs we have with hair? and all of the dinosaurs with feathers?
Probably not all. But there is a possibility that some were faked. It's easy to carve into an old fossil, if you have the right tools.
the same way anything else fossilized. by making an impression that fills with minerals.
Have you considered how great of a force it would take to leave an imprint in rock? Probably something like, a great flood?
hair (and feathers) don't fossilize very well either. it doesn't mean they DON'T.
But think of it, all those fossils with hair and feathers being fossilized, I think there's some conspiracy behind it or some of it...
because it's such a minor one, and it's not my job to go around correcting every herpetology website about tiny errors.
Maybe it's not a mistake after all? That's a possibility...
yes.
Dinosauria On-Line
if you remove a single gene from the chicken genome, the scutes on their feet are replaced by feathers. this gene is the one that modifies feathers into scutes. one gene.
But see, that is from one creature, a bird that had the genes for scutes and feathers. But how about reptilian scales and bird feathers, do you have proof that they came from one gene?
except, of course, for the fact that they do have a lot to do with feathers, if we can fairly easily turn them into feathers. we also have some dinosaurs, like microraptor gui, that have flight feathers on their feet, growing from where modern birds have scutes:
But those dinosaurs are not birds. And I thought they can only turn into feathers easily in chickens. But that's not reptilian scales evolving into bird feathers.
no, please try to follow along.
the reptilian scales on a bird's feet, which are located on the bottom of the foot, are not the same chemical composition as feathers. the bird scales on a bird's feet, SCUTES, which are located on the top of the foot, ARE.
So you're saying that the chicken has reptilian scales? How? Oh, and, scutes are also the scales of turtles and other creatures, not just chickens.

"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by arachnophilia, posted 06-09-2006 11:07 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by arachnophilia, posted 06-10-2006 10:19 PM Someone who cares has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024