|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,461 Year: 3,718/9,624 Month: 589/974 Week: 202/276 Day: 42/34 Hour: 5/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Theropods and Birds showing a change in kinds | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Creationists and IDists have asked for examples of one kind evolving into another and this is my attempt to share with them what I've found convincing of just that.
I went to a local park a while back and they had a little animal exibit with a petting zoo. In one of their cages they have an emu. I was standing on the other side of the fence looking this thing in the eyes and I couldn't help but notice that it did look like a dinosaur. I was messing with it a bit and the darn thing hissed at me!*(see below) It sounded just like a lizard. Then I looked at its feet and they really looked like some scaly-lizard dinosaur feet. And when you look at the whole animal, it is very similiar to a theropod dinosaur in shape. Let's look at some pictures: Here is a theropod:
Here is an ostrich (its close to an emu):
At first glance it should be obvious that these animals are two different kinds, but let's look closer. Here's some skeletons:
I think they look similiar enough that you could get one from the other with microevolutionary changes. Their general 'body plan' is pretty similiar with the two long legs and small arms, kinda hunched over with a head on a long neck. And look how similiar their feet are:
The emu feet still have scales on them! And it doesn't take much imagination to see how feathers could be elongated and modified scales. All these slight differences, or similarities, could easily be microevolutionary changes form to the other. But when we look at them as a whole, or in general, we see that they are different kinds. I'm trying to be very general here and am not implying that ostriches are direct decendents of velociraptors, but I think its obvious that birds did decend from theropods. And that its a great example of one kind becomming another. *here's the best youtube video I could find where you could hear an emu hiss. Turn it up and listen at 0:09 - 0:11: Sounds like a lizard, doesn't it? So what do you think? Two different kinds where one decended from the other through a bunch of microevolutionary changes. I found it convincing. Do you? ABE: I don't intend this to be much of a scientific discussion, and don't want to get bogged down on defining 'kind', so I'd prefer it not in one of the science forums. Edited by Catholic Scientist, : see ABE
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13018 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
Thread copied here from the Theropods and Birds showing a change in kinds thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4662 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
Interesing, I have also always thought that this:
Astonishingly looked like this:
I hope you can see my point. Similarity, either in the phenotype or the genotype, does not prove relationship unfortunately. This is why it is more important to look at the differences, and see if an evolutionary mechanism can account going from one state to the other. The example you talked about with scales and feathers would be one such difference (and a topic of it's own, or we can discuss it here), because maybe I don't have enough imagination, but I don't see a feather as an elongated and modified scale.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2317 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
slevesque writes:
It does, doesn't it.
Interesing, I have also always thought that this: {pic of Darwin} Astonishingly looked like this: {Pic of Chimp} I hope you can see my point.
That things with similar morphology are related?
Similarity, either in the phenotype or the genotype, does not prove relationship unfortunately.
Oh.... Then why did you pic a human and a chimp, two creatures that are related? I hunt for the truth I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping handMy image is of agony, my servants rape the land Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore. -Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
I'm confused:
In response to two creatures in different kinds being shown to be closely related yo rebut with two creatures in different kinds that have also been shown to be closely related. What were you thinking?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4662 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
It was to show that if the classical example of chimp and human similarities does not convince me of relationship, neither will an emu and a theropod.
CS wants to prove relationship with similarity, but it just isn't enough. It's the classical case of affirming the consequent: Related species would have similar featuresTwo species have similar features therefore they are related Which is fallacious. Besides, any knowledgeable evolutionists should know this, considering the sizeable amount of convergent evolution examples in my biology book ...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 823 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
CS wants to prove relationship with similarity, but it just isn't enough. no, slevesque. CS is not trying to use this as the ONLY evidence. It is being used AS a PIECE of evidence. Creo's and IDists try this, not scientists (catholic or not, ) there are other pieces of evidence (which have been trudged through all throughout this forum) that ALSO give credence to this similarity. Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people -Carl Sagan For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.-Carl Sagan
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined:
|
Related species would have similar features, two species have similar features, therefore they are related Which is fallacious. By the same logic you could argue that a tiger is not related to a sand cat. This only provides strong evidence that you will never be able to use evidence to alter the way you view the natural world.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
It's the classical case of affirming the consequent: But you could say that of all scientific knowledge whatsoever.
Besides, any knowledgeable evolutionists should know this, considering the sizeable amount of convergent evolution examples in my biology book ... But convergent evolution is superficial, it can't be expected to produce similar underlying morphology from lineages that started off different. No amount of convergent evolution will give the hummingbird moth the skeletoon of a hummingbird. Besides which, I'm not sure that my lifestyle is sufficiently like that of a monkey to produce convergence ... still less the lifestyles of Archaeopteryx and T. rex. The notion that differences in lifestyle have produced divergence seems more plausible. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4662 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
I would suggets you reread the OP, as CS has made it clear that he judges this line of reasoning to be sufficient to affirm relationship:
Creationists and IDists have asked for examples of one kind evolving into another and this is my attempt to share with them what I've found convincing of just that. I'm trying to be very general here and am not implying that ostriches are direct decendents of velociraptors, but I think its obvious that birds did decend from theropods. And that its a great example of one kind becomming another. (emphasis in original)
I found it convincing. Do you? I'm not saying there are no other evidence as you have said. What I'm saying is that CS has given only this evidence, and declared it to be sufficient to convince him of relationship.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4662 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
By the same logic you could argue that a tiger is not related to a sand cat. I'm not sure if it is me misexpressing myself or maybe a lack of logical understanding on your part, but you cannot prove none-relationship by affirming the consequent. Affirming the consequent is fallacious because it is not sufficient to prove the conclusion. It does not mean that the given conclusion is wrong, it just means that a correct logical path needs to be taken.
This only provides strong evidence that you will never be able to use evidence to alter the way you view the natural world. Sorry for not being convinced by a fallacious argument ... --------------- BTW, I know I use the word fallacious repeatedly, this is not an attack on CS. He is a very bright personand has shown it repeatedly, and logical ability is not in question. He just slipped in a hard-to-recognize fallacy and I'm trying to point it out. (Although with much more resistance then anticipated) Edited by slevesque, : No reason given. Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4662 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
But you could say that of all scientific knowledge whatsoever. If all of scientific knowledge is based on affirming the consequent, then we're in deep shizzles.
But convergent evolution is superficial, it can't be expected to produce similar underlying morphology from lineages that started off different. No amount of convergent evolution will give the hummingbird moth the skeletoon of a hummingbird. Besides which, I'm not sure that my lifestyle is sufficiently like that of a monkey to produce convergence ... still less the lifestyles of Archaeopteryx and T. rex. The notion that differences in lifestyle have produced divergence seems more plausible. Convergent evolution is simply an example as to why affirming similar morphology is unsufficient to confirm relationship. I could have done a similar analysis as CS with tasmanian tigers and dogs in terms of morphological similarity, and of course no one would have concluded relationship between the two as CS has with Emu and theropods. I also want to specify that affirming the consequent is necessary for the conclusion to be possible. This can be seen with it's counterpart, denying the consequent: Two related species will have similar featurestwo species do not have similar features therefore they are not related. Which is a valid argument. Therefore, it shows that similarity is a required characteristic to conclude relationship, but it is not a sufficient one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4662 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
Note also that CS (fallaciously) shows a relationship between Emu's and theropods, only to conclude a relationship with all Birds. (As per his title)
Which is also fallacious.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peepul Member (Idle past 5040 days) Posts: 206 Joined: |
quote:. Though it's one of the many strands of evidence that do, collectively, prove exactly that. Some of the genotypic similarities are in themselves strong evidence of relationship - particularly elements that are non-functional such as ERVs, LINES, and pseudogenes. Likewise similarities in genotype between creatures with strongly different phenotypes is very good evidence of relationship - when supported by fossils that show intermediates between them. In the theropod / bird case, we don't have access to genetic data about theropods, but we do for birds, and they show the existence of pseudogenes, for example, for teeth. Here's info on some research on a mutant chicken with teeth. Surprise: Chickens Can Grow Teeth | Live Science We also have a wide variety of intermediates between the birds of today and their ancestors, most discovered quite recently. It's clear that feathers evolved first, in flightless dinosaurs, and were then co-opted for flight. There are intermediate feather types in the fossil record which have a simpler structure then feathers now. Here's a nice link on feather evolution. Feather evolution This link makes clear that feathers are unlikely to have evolved from scales - so I think you're right about that (although this article is not primary literature). Edited by Peepul, : mis-spelling of theropod
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peepul Member (Idle past 5040 days) Posts: 206 Joined: |
quote: I think that's fair comment Slevesque - but what do you think of the other evidence?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024