what mechanism prohibits change from compiling? 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. 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? 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. 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. 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." 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. 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

---

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. i already showed you a reptile with hair. based on what, exactly? 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? no. one more time:reptilian scales did not evolve into bird feathers.period. at all. ever. didn't happen. because you totally reject the idea of evolution in general, i know. so you discard the evidence completely out of hand. 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. 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.

---

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. 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. you're really not listening, are you?bird feathers ARE NOT RELATED to reptilian scales. 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. 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. no, it's dinosaurian feathers evolving into bird scales.

reptilian scales did not evolve into bird feathers

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. same name, similar idea. not actually related (those that are scales are reptilian scales, though on turtles, they're part of the shell)

---

somewhat ironically, though not coincidentally, also gingerich. 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. do you really think that all paleontology is people sitting in dark smokey room conspiring to commit fakes? which one? two are from aig. 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). it is somewhere between a pectoral fin, and a forelimb. 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. then you weren't looking. 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

---

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.

---

i remember when "judicial activism" had a definition.

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.

---

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...

---

boy i tell you, before kids were sneakin' peaks at their father's playboys, they were sneakin' peaks at their father's national geographics.

---

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.

---