|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Theropods and Birds showing a change in kinds | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
From Message 3:
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. I'm not sure I do. At first it seems like your saying that they look related. From Message 6:
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. But its not just a cursory glance at their external morphologies. From that, it seems that the theropod and bird are different kinds. But when you look at them closely, or into them, and especially those feet!, you can see that a bunch of small changes, microevolutionary changes, to the theropod could easily get us to the point of being a bird. Or are you telling me that you are unconvicible?
CS wants to prove relationship with similarity, but it just isn't enough. I'm not trying to prove it. I'm saying: "Look, here's two different kinds with which you could easily get from one to the other with some microevolutionary changes." Don't you think that's possible? Don't you think its a good example of the potential ability of one kind to evolve into another? There's nothing that would prevent a bunch of microevolutionary changes to a theropod from turning it into a bird, is there? Don't the pictures show that it is at least plausible? Back to message 3:
Similarity, either in the phenotype or the genotype, does not prove relationship unfortunately. Of course not, and especially not on its own. But it is evidence of relationship.
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. I guess you're right, in that it would be better to try to prove that evolution couldn't do it, and then when we fail to prove that, we've shown that it could have, but that isn't the experience I'm trying to share here. We here from creationists and IDists that microevolution cannot lead to macroevolution, and they request examples of where it could. This is my attempt at providing that example, in addition to sharing an experience that I enjoyed and found helpful in understanding all this. Seriously, go look an emu in the eyes and taunt it to hiss at you and then come back and tell me that it didn't seem a lot like a lizard. Oh, and don't forget to look at its dragony feet while you're there. It was an awesome experience. From Message 12:
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. Me and any other creationist or IDist, after a cursory glance of tasmanian tigers and dogs, or sugar gliders and flying squirrels, would conclude that they are the same kind. But when we look closer, and into them, I dunno about the feet :-p, we would see that the formers are marsupials and the latters are mammals and figure out that they are not, in fact, closely related. And I could see arguing that a bunch of microevolutionary changes wouldn't easily get us from one to the other. But with the theropod and emu, or ostrich or other large bird, I find that they are close enough that a bunch of microevolutionary change could get us from one to the other. Would you care to offer a reason why it couldn't? I don't care to get into the logic, or the logical implications, of my statements (I wasn't trying to imply all birds, for example). I didn't intend this to be an official formal argument but more of a 'hey look, isn't this neat' kind of thing. You guys have asked for an example of one kind becoming another, and I still think this is a great example of how it could happen.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 170 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
But the similarity of feature (right down to molecular biological similarities) are the evidence that the conclusions are drawn from.
How could you have a problem with that? The image of the two closely related primates you posted as a refutation of the two closely related (both in the Therapoda clade) show such similarities that the only reason one would not conclude a relationship is theological. What would make you think that a human and a chimp are not closely related (please don't forget endogenous retroviral markers)?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DC85 Member Posts: 876 From: Richmond, Virginia USA Joined: |
quote:If genetic proof and visual proof doesn't convince you... what does? Humans share well over 98% of DNA with chimps but for some reason that doesn't even raise you eyebrow. I suspect nothing will be good enough for you. also this seems to be a better look
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Thanks for the addition, DC85.
also this seems to be a better look
So the top one is a chicken and the bottom one is an archaopteryx. Creationists, those must be the same kind, right? Or not?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 3014 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Slevesque.
slevesque writes: If all of scientific knowledge is based on affirming the consequent, then we're in deep shizzles. And yet, strangely, millions of scientists have been able to apply this method to real-world applications, with great success. If you call that "shizzles," then I suppose you're right. Look, the only point you've got is that CS might not have treated his conclusion as tentatively as he should have. But, we all know that empirical knowledge is tentative: we've been reasoning that way for decades, ever since Karl Popper's work in the 1960's. Empirical methodologies cannot prove hypotheses conclusively. Successful predictions based on hypotheses can be described as coincidences or ascribed to some underlying mechanism that still is not known. But, until such a mechanism is proposed, the current best model remains unchallenged. CS has shown that there is good reason to suspect that birds are descended from theropods, and no reason as yet to suspect that they are not. Until somebody comes up with a better explanation, CS and his model are king of the hill. That's how it works. Edited by Bluejay, : CS and his model are two nouns: thus, they require a plural verb. -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
And yet, strangely, millions of scientists have been able to apply this method to real-world applications, with great success. If you call that "shizzles," then I suppose you're right. I find it hilarious when people claim science has problems over an internet discussion board. I mean, here we are, communicating instantly over great distances because of science. That, and it put a freakin' man on the moon... yeah, deep shizzles science is in ![]() Look, the only point you've got is that CS might not have treated his conclusion as tentatively as he should have. I also think its funny that he had to resort to questioning the validity of my conclusion following from the premises when 1) I stated that I found it convincing for myself and was asking if others did and 2) didn't even conclude that my finding was a must, just that it seemed to all line up. Instead of addressing the thought as a whole, it was broken down to find a fault of one of the parts. But I guess if you can't rebut it as a whole then that's all you've got left.
But, until such a mechanism is proposed, the current best model remains unchallenged. CS has shown that there is good reason to suspect that birds are descended from theropods, and no reason as yet to suspect that they are not. Until somebody comes up with a better explanation, CS and his model is king of the hill. And additionally, that they are also seperate kinds and seem to show one kind evolving into another.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1721 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi DC85
If you put a white background behind the gif picture it is easier to see: [blockcolor=white][img=200]http:⁄⁄i7.photobucket.com/albums/y286/gbaz_matt/Arhaeopteryxskeleton.gif [/img][/blockcolor]
Enjoy Edited by Admin, : Add line breaks to long line.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Just to add to the list of similarities:
Theropods laid eggs in nests that they made...
http://uhangridinopia.haenam.go.kr/eng/s_3/view_item.php?...
quote: Here's some other links that talk about it: http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/...les/Eggs/Nests/thernest.html Error 404 | Emory University | Atlanta GA Everything I've found so far fits with these two different kinds, theropods and birds, being related where birds decended from theropods and I've found nothing that suggests that they couldn't be. Its still obvious to me that one kind has evolved into another. Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2641 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 5.9 |
Hey guys! Just in from China:
"A team of scientists from China and the UK has now revealed that the bristles of this 125 million-year-old dinosaur were in fact ginger-coloured feathers." BBC News - Dinosaur had ginger feathers Check it out. This gives more weight to a very well-supported theory that modern birds evolved from theropods, the group of small carnivorous dinosaurs to which Sinosauropteryx belonged." "The findings also help to resolve a long-standing debate about the evolution and original function of feathers. "We now know that feathers did not originate as flight structures," said Professor Benton. "This suggests that they evolved, initially, for insulation and perhaps for display. " " Kinda timely, I'd say. - xongsmith, 5.7d
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kaichos Man Member (Idle past 4804 days) Posts: 250 From: Tasmania, Australia Joined: |
I'm not trying to prove it. I'm saying: "Look, here's two different kinds with which you could easily get from one to the other with some microevolutionary changes." Don't you think that's possible? Actually, no. For a start, the emu is an endotherm- it's warm blooded. That means all of its cells have to gain many times more mitochondria than the dinosaur, and then they all have to be serviced by a fine network of blood capillaries that the dinosaur doesn't have. Oh, and while it's evolving these features (for no apparent reason) it's got to find ten times as much food to burn and maintain it's body temperature. Oh, and if it wants feathers, it's going to have to grow hair first (hair and feathers both come from follicles). Tough to do when you're covered in scales. A baby lobster and a scorpion look pretty similar, CS. Don't be fooled... Edited by Kaichos Man, : No reason given. "Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3960 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
For a start, the emu is an endotherm- it's warm blooded. That means all of its cells have to gain many times more mitochondria than the dinosaur So you are suggesting that dinosaurs were cold-blooded? Are you sure about this?
Oh, and if it wants feathers, it's going to have to grow hair first (hair and feathers both come from follicles). Tough to do when you're covered in scales. So, you are suggesting that dinosaurs didn't have feathers? Are you sure about this?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pandion Member (Idle past 3317 days) Posts: 166 From: Houston Joined: |
Oh, and if it wants feathers, it's going to have to grow hair first (hair and feathers both come from follicles). Tough to do when you're covered in scales.
So, you are suggesting that feathers evolved from hair? Are you sure about that?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 1051 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Tough to do when you're covered in scales. Have you ever looked at a chicken's foot, KM? Edited by Coragyps, : fix tag
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Thanks for the reply, Kaichos Man.
For a start, the emu is an endotherm- it's warm blooded. That means all of its cells have to gain many times more mitochondria than the dinosaur, and then they all have to be serviced by a fine network of blood capillaries that the dinosaur doesn't have. Dinosaurs were probably warm blooded as well...
quote: Here is some Evidence for Endothermy in Dinosaurs.
Oh, and while it's evolving these features (for no apparent reason) it's got to find ten times as much food to burn and maintain it's body temperature. Don't you think that evolving feather would HELP maintain body temperature?
quote: Oh, and if it wants feathers, it's going to have to grow hair first (hair and feathers both come from follicles). I'm not sure about that. Do you have any support for feather requiring hair growth first?
Tough to do when you're covered in scales. Didn't you see the picture of the foot in the OP:
Birds do have scales!
A baby lobster and a scorpion look pretty similar, CS. Don't be fooled... And at first glance one might think they're the same kind. But then you look more and more and find out that there not. However, the more and more I look at birds and theropods, then more they seem to be the same kind. But at first glance, they are obviously different kinds. It still looks like one kind becomming another to me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Godismyjudge Junior Member (Idle past 5489 days) Posts: 1 From: Lincoln,Lincolnshire,England Joined: |
I notice you use the term evidence, there is no evidence for or against creation. We all have the same evidence: the same fossils, the same rocks, the same Earth. What is different is how we interpret this evidence. I don't think either side is trying to find some sort of "magic bullet".
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025