Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,585 Year: 4,842/9,624 Month: 190/427 Week: 0/103 Day: 0/8 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution Logic
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1423 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 183 of 302 (319518)
06-09-2006 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by Someone who cares
06-08-2006 8:36 PM


Creature can change, but only within limits, within thier own kind, for that, we do have evidence. But for macroevolution, we do not.
what mechanism prohibits change from compiling?
But it already had scale follicles, why would it also evolve hair follicles? So those creatures would have had hairy scales? Is that what you're saying? Or were they losing scales follicles and evolving hair follicles instead, being bare for some time?
many reptiles lack crocodilian-type scales. an early reptile might have grown hair (and the follicles it requires) during the shift to warm-blood. there were many adaptations that aided in this, but one -- bipedalism - required it.
I think some of the specimens were faked.
all 7, faked in exactly the same, precisely accurate way? a way that's fooled paleontologists trained at spotting fakes? a way that lines up nicely with every other feathered dinosaur found?
But either way you look at it, archaeopteryx has no link coming to it and leaving from it, so it's not a valid transitional fossil anyway.
bad logic. evolution is not a straight line, it's a forking tree. archaeopteryx is not a direct ancestor of modern birds, no. but it is closely related to the common ancestor of it, and modern birds.
"transitional" doesn't mean "exactly between in a direct line of ancestors." it means that it indicates the sorts of transitions that were going on.
It doesn't show scales evolving into feathers, it shows fully developed feathers.
scales did not evolve into feathers.
and if if they did, what would you expect to see as a transition? tell me how you would represent a transition, with one species, frozen in time, in the rock? would you accept less advanced feathers? we have those too.
as previously mentioned, many non-avian dinosaurs have hollow bones.
That doesn't prove they had air sacs or something.
birds have hollow bones as part of their respiratory system. they have hollow bones because they have air sacrs. actually, the hollow bones are the air sacs.
your argument is about like saying "it has a skull, but that doesn't prove it had a brain."
But then again, dinosaurs were reptiles, reptiles are cold blooded.
birds are reptiles too. they're warm blooded. remember that page you just looked up about archosaurs? birds are dinosaurs, dinosaurs are archosaurs, archosaurs are sauropsides ("reptiles").
but you failed to follow the logic here. cold blooded animals cannot be bipedal. period. they have to remain close to the ground for warmth. because dinosaurs walked with their legs under them, and often on two legs (the four legged ones, btw, all started off bipedal) they MUST have been warm-blooded in some degree.
We weren't there to witness it, so we can't be sure of much.
if someone broke into your house, and stole your tv...
do you not understand that science is often forensic in nature? especially paleontology.
Edited by arachnophilia, : broken tag


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Someone who cares, posted 06-08-2006 8:36 PM Someone who cares has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by Someone who cares, posted 06-10-2006 8:36 PM arachnophilia has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1423 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 239 of 302 (320269)
06-10-2006 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by Someone who cares
06-10-2006 8:36 PM


Variations can compile, I mean, look at the wolf and the poodle, they do look very different, but they're still the "dog" kind. Variations can compile, but they cannot produce different kinds!
you have not given a good reason why not. you say variations can compile, but then say there's a limit -- one you have neither defined, nor given a reason for.
many reptiles lack crocodilian-type scales. an early reptile might have grown hair (and the follicles it requires) during the shift to warm-blood. there were many adaptations that aided in this, but one -- bipedalism - required it.
"Might have?" But can we see proof that this happened?
i already showed you a reptile with hair.
all 7, faked in exactly the same, precisely accurate way? a way that's fooled paleontologists trained at spotting fakes? a way that lines up nicely with every other feathered dinosaur found?
Notice I said SOME, not all. I think at least two of them are faked.
based on what, exactly?
But those transitions were supposed to happen slowly, bit by bit, right? So where are the fossils to show the slow transitions leading to archaeopteryx, and coming from it?
obviously not in the books you're reading. i'll give you a hint, i already posted one of them, microraptor. some other fun examples include (but are not limited to) sinornis, claudipteryx, protarchaeopteryx, sinornithosaurus, and sinosauropteryx on the dinosaur side, and a whole range birds like the enantiornethes and icthyornithes on the bird side.
do you seriously think we have only ONE feathered dinosaur/early bird?
Oh? So you say that scales didn't slowly evolve into feathers? Instead they just jumped suddenly from one to the other, from reptile covering to bird covering? That's not how your theory goes.
no. one more time:
reptilian scales did not evolve into bird feathers.
period. at all. ever. didn't happen.
And no, "less advanced" feathers won't do.
because you totally reject the idea of evolution in general, i know. so you discard the evidence completely out of hand.
But why would non avian dinosaurs have air sacs? Would it benefit them in any way?
because of the point you bring up next. air sacs in birds today are what allows high-altitude flight. they are perfectly adapted for thinner air. one particular theory (not guess -- it's supported by evidence) regards the oxygen content of mesozoic air.
besides that, they also aid in respiration, acting like our diaphragms in some capacity.
Why "must?" I mean, say, what if the climate and atmosphere during dinosaurs was different than todays?
because those are the rules. cold-blooded animals are incapable of maintaining body temperature, and so they stick close to things that are warm. like the ground.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Someone who cares, posted 06-10-2006 8:36 PM Someone who cares has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1423 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 242 of 302 (320279)
06-10-2006 10:19 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by Someone who cares
06-10-2006 8:18 PM


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?
you never liked dinosaurs as a kid? seriously? i had cartoon dinosaurs all over my room when i was 6. my sheets, my curtains, a wallpaper border... they always, ALWAYS had a pterodactyl thrown in.
they're similar enough to dinosaurs that most 6 year olds confuse them with dinosaurs pretty regularly. they're not dinosaurs, they're flying reptiles.
but no, it's not a bird. pterosaurs are a sister group to dinosaurs. birds are a daughter group.
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.
no, actually, it's not.
trust me on this. not only do i have some understanding of paleontology, i have more understanding of art. carving stuff that detailed is nowhere near easy -- and carving stuff that detailed, accurate, consistent, AND convincing enough that it fools people who know what to look for is nothing short of miraculous.
this may suprise you, but fake fossils are relatively commonplace on the black market. and to the trained eye, they're easy to spot. much easier to spot than to create, actually.
a good example, btw, is the creationist favourite, archaeoraptor. creationists make a big deal of it, but the fact that it was discovered as a fake so quickly that the article never made it to publication should speak for itself. by contrast, archaeopteryx has been around for 150 years. we have seven specimens, all of which are absolutely identical in the feathers.
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?
you're really not listening, are you?
bird feathers ARE NOT RELATED to reptilian scales.
But those dinosaurs are not birds.
i recently got my ass handed to me on talk.origins for saying something similar regarding archaeopteryx. it's actually a somewhat arbitrary line, what we call a "bird" and what we call a "feathered dinosaur." technically, all birds are feathered dinosaurs.
And I thought they can only turn into feathers easily in chickens.
chickens are birds. with the gene turned off, chickens grow feathers on their feet. here's a dinosaur with feathers on his feet. it's not a coincidence.
But that's not reptilian scales evolving into bird feathers.
no, it's dinosaurian feathers evolving into bird scales.

reptilian scales did not evolve into bird feathers

So you're saying that the chicken has reptilian scales? How?
yes. go to a pet store, and ask to hold one of their parrots sometime. birds are quite fascinating animals. while its claws are wrapped around your finger, have a look at its foot. notice the two types of scales. the big flat ones on top are called "scutes." the round ones everywhere else are reptilian scales.
Oh, and, scutes are also the scales of turtles and other creatures, not just chickens.
same name, similar idea. not actually related (those that are scales are reptilian scales, though on turtles, they're part of the shell)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Someone who cares, posted 06-10-2006 8:18 PM Someone who cares has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1423 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 243 of 302 (320297)
06-10-2006 10:51 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by Someone who cares
06-10-2006 8:00 PM


Re: Great example
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.
somewhat ironically, though not coincidentally, also gingerich.
But we are speaking of Gingerich's picture, when speaking of the skull fragments.
what "we?" we have the skull now. the first artist interpretation (NOT reconstruction) was mistaken on the length of the legs, because that particular guess was based on ambulocetus.
Sure, maybe later along the way, someone found the whole skull, or fake it, or something like that...
do you really think that all paleontology is people sitting in dark smokey room conspiring to commit fakes?
hanks for the picture, where did you get it? What is the source? Can we rely on it?
which one? two are from aig.
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.
yes, we all do make mistakes. here a much better source:
quote:
Enarthrosis (ball-and-socket joints).”Enarthrosis is a joint in which the distal bone is capable of motion around an indefinite number of axes, which have one common center. It is formed by the reception of a globular head into a cup-like cavity, hence the name “ball-and-socket.” Examples of this form of articulation are found in the hip and shoulder.
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/gray/subjects/subject
however. it is still clearly obvious that you were thinking of hind limbs, not forelimbs (eg: kneecaps).
But my point was, you called it a pectoral fin, not a limb, or something. As someone claimed it was a leg.
it is somewhere between a pectoral fin, and a forelimb.
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.
depends on your definition of a leg. it is an appendage that extends from the body and ends with clearly defined digits. being able to bear weight on land is not and issues. simple pushing an animal around in shallow water is an advantage. and even so, many un-legged fish today use their weak appendages to help themselves over land. they don't have to WALK on them to make them work.
I know, but I didn't see any hands or fingers.
then you weren't looking.
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.
evolution doesn't create mermaids. you do not make a transitional creature by sweing together the back half of a fish and the front half of a newt. attempts to fake fossils as such are quickly recognized. i'm sure you can think of one famous example. someone phrased it as "about like faking a 1950's car by welding together pieces from a 1920's car and a 1980's car."
what we have with tiktaalik are FORMS that are somewhere between fish and amphibians. not parts from both, but parts that shaped like compromises between the two. we don't need the other half of the skeleton to tell us that the pieces we have are somewhere between the two -- though the rest of the skeleton would certainly be interesting.
Edited by arachnophilia, : typo


This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by Someone who cares, posted 06-10-2006 8:00 PM Someone who cares has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1423 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 269 of 302 (320577)
06-11-2006 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by Percy
06-11-2006 4:10 PM


Re: bump for SWC
Clear victories like Dover (in other words, victories where both sides understand who won and who lost) are rare.
percy, read some stuff like what the di has to say about dover and tell me again it's a clear victory.
they will never agree to a defeat. ever. anything we consider a defeat, they consider confirmation of their conspiracist world-view.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by Percy, posted 06-11-2006 4:10 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by RAZD, posted 06-11-2006 4:44 PM arachnophilia has replied
 Message 272 by Percy, posted 06-11-2006 4:52 PM arachnophilia has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1423 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 271 of 302 (320584)
06-11-2006 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by RAZD
06-11-2006 4:44 PM


Re: bump for SWC
i remember when "judicial activism" had a definition.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by RAZD, posted 06-11-2006 4:44 PM RAZD has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1423 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 274 of 302 (320613)
06-11-2006 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by Percy
06-11-2006 4:52 PM


Re: bump for SWC
If you're expecting representatives of Discovery Institute to get up in public and state, "We accept that we were shown to be wrong in a fair legal fight," then just realize it ain't never going to happen. This is politics, and you never admit defeat in politics.
yes, but people are obviously buying the spin. and we canot say for certain that the people who wrote that do not buy it themselves.
it may be an obvious to me and you, even from just their pathetic attempt to spin it, but evidently it's as obvious to everyone.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by Percy, posted 06-11-2006 4:52 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by Percy, posted 06-11-2006 7:38 PM arachnophilia has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1423 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 276 of 302 (320621)
06-11-2006 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by Percy
06-11-2006 7:38 PM


Re: bump for SWC
yes, you may be right. they seemed to have been pushing id as a way into schools -- now that that has failed, it's time to try something else.
i'm just not sure we can call it a defeat. do you call it a defeat when the invaders surrounding your castle fail to break down the back door?
Edited by arachnophilia, : removed quote. i'm sure people can follow directly sequential posts without me quoting percy's entire message...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by Percy, posted 06-11-2006 7:38 PM Percy has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1423 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 282 of 302 (320980)
06-12-2006 11:02 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by crashfrog
06-12-2006 10:50 PM


Re: Question!
Where did human embarassment from nakedness come from?
You've never opened an issue of National Geographic, have you?
boy i tell you, before kids were sneakin' peaks at their father's playboys, they were sneakin' peaks at their father's national geographics.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by crashfrog, posted 06-12-2006 10:50 PM crashfrog has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1423 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 283 of 302 (320982)
06-12-2006 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 281 by nwr
06-12-2006 10:56 PM


Re: Question!
Where did human embarassment from nakedness come from?
From religion.
well, in particular, the judeo-christian tradition contains an explanation of where bodily shame came from. it seems to me that this indicates it predates this particular religion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by nwr, posted 06-12-2006 10:56 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by nwr, posted 06-12-2006 11:19 PM arachnophilia 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