Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-23-2019 8:41 AM
26 online now:
AZPaul3, JoeT, kjsimons, PaulK, Stile, Theodoric (6 members, 20 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,110 Year: 5,147/19,786 Month: 1,269/873 Week: 165/460 Day: 10/97 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
56
7
8910Next
Author Topic:   Theropods and Birds showing a change in kinds
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2749 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 91 of 150 (545635)
02-04-2010 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Dr Adequate
02-04-2010 7:44 AM


Re: Feathers as novel features
Hi Dr.A,

Creationists are going to distort whatever arguments come up, and they've put me in company with luminaries like Stephen Jay Gould, so it doesn't bother me a bit. Archaeopteryx is half reptile and half bird any way you cut the deck, and so it is a Rosetta stone for evolution, whether it is related to dinosaurs or not. These creationists are confusing an argument about minor details of evolution with the indisputable fact of evolution.

Yeah I have read some counter-quotes by Feduccia when searching a bit yesterday. I think it is fairly obvious thatwhat happened to him is the same that happened to Gould. He thought of a great alternative to the commonly accepted theory and started out in fanfare trying to promote it, with big claims etc. Of course, when some of those claims were picked up by creationists it hurt his reputation quite a bit, and to claim it back he stepped down a notch on his claims and even contradicted himself on some occasions, such as here. (which was an email answer to a question by a layman, I believe right ?)

In any case, he contradicts himself. It's normal with humans


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-04-2010 7:44 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-04-2010 9:09 PM slevesque has responded

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2749 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 92 of 150 (545636)
02-04-2010 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Dr Adequate
02-04-2010 8:15 AM


Which paleontologists can spot, which is the only reason you know that in the first place.

Did you read the interview with Feduccia I posted earlier ? He says that there are loads of fake fossils out there. Obviously, if they were easy to spot they wouldn't be 'out there'.

Or do you think only archaeoraptor was fake and all the others were legit ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-04-2010 8:15 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Taq, posted 02-04-2010 4:05 PM slevesque has not yet responded
 Message 101 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-04-2010 9:18 PM slevesque has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7694
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 93 of 150 (545638)
02-04-2010 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by slevesque
02-04-2010 3:40 PM


Re: Feathers as novel features
Exactly the same sonar structure up down to the genome level in dolphins and bats, for example.

Citation? All you have shown thus far is the a few of the same mutations in a single gene. You have not shown that the structure is the same. As it turns out, it isn't the same.

Bats use their ear openings, just like we do. Dolphins do not. They use a fatty structure at the front of their heads. It acts like a lens to focus the incoming sound waves:


http://www.inkokomo.com/dolphin/echolocation.html

So again, we see only a very superficial similarity between the echolocation of bats and dolphins.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by slevesque, posted 02-04-2010 3:40 PM slevesque has not yet responded

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2749 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 94 of 150 (545639)
02-04-2010 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Taq
02-04-2010 10:34 AM


So we have gone from "fingerprints are not compelling evidence" to "what fingerprints?".

Is that how a court of law works? Proof beyond a reasonable doubt once you have ignored the evidence?

The fact of the matter is that there are fossils with dinosaur characteristics not found in any living bird. These same fossils have avian features not found in other dinosaurs. How is this not half dino/half bird?

Don't worry, my intention is not to ignore evidence.

But in the case of fossils, you have either dinosaurs with feathers, but aside from that are completely dinosaurs. And birds with all the characteristics of birds (perching bird in the case of archaeopterix) with some reptile features like teeth if I remember correctly (and teeth isn't really a uniquely reptilian feature)

No really 50/50 in between type. No in between lung structure, no in between femur structure, no in between balance structure, etc.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Taq, posted 02-04-2010 10:34 AM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Taq, posted 02-04-2010 4:07 PM slevesque has responded
 Message 102 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-04-2010 9:43 PM slevesque has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7694
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 95 of 150 (545640)
02-04-2010 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by slevesque
02-04-2010 3:56 PM


Did you read the interview with Feduccia I posted earlier ? He says that there are loads of fake fossils out there.

Does Feduccia claim that all of them are fakes? Does Feduccia claim that transitional fossils are not compelling evidence for evolution?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by slevesque, posted 02-04-2010 3:56 PM slevesque has not yet responded

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2749 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 96 of 150 (545641)
02-04-2010 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by ZenMonkey
02-04-2010 12:03 PM


Re: Wait a sec.
No, I'm sorry, but if you don't accept the dating of fossil evidence, that invalidates any argument that you want to put forth regarding the order and relationship of that same evidence.

You can't have it both ways. I'm not asking you to justify your rejection of radiometric and other dating methods. However, if you really believe that all the fossil evidence is recent and roughly contemporaneous, then you have no basis whatsoever to claim that any particular fossil predates another.

Pick one or the other.

Lol, ok. I guess I'll let you discuss all of this with one another then.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by ZenMonkey, posted 02-04-2010 12:03 PM ZenMonkey has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7694
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 97 of 150 (545642)
02-04-2010 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by slevesque
02-04-2010 4:03 PM


But in the case of fossils, you have either dinosaurs with feathers, but aside from that are completely dinosaurs.

Modern birds are classified as dinosaurs and are complete dinosaurs, so I really don't see your point. The fact of the matter is that fossils like Archaeopteryx have a mixture of non-avian dinosaur features and modern bird features. Can you please tell us why this is not a transitional fossil? What criteria are you using to determine if a fossil is transitional or not?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by slevesque, posted 02-04-2010 4:03 PM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by slevesque, posted 02-05-2010 3:58 PM Taq has responded

  
DC85
Member (Idle past 440 days)
Posts: 875
From: Richmond, Virginia USA
Joined: 05-06-2003


Message 98 of 150 (545661)
02-04-2010 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by slevesque
02-04-2010 3:19 PM


quote:
u gave an example of a bird that dates after the therapods. This is not surprising.

What I am saying is that there are birds found before the therapods, and so whatever whatever link between the two is found after that does not explain how those earlier birds came to be in the first place.
You gave an example of a bird that dates after the therapods. This is not surprising.


please give the example of a bird found before the late triassic... I'd love to see it. Protoavis is the earliest one I know of and it pre-dates Archaeopteryx by almost 60-65 million years. Please show your source. Besides this protavis is no longer thought to have been a bird.

Edited by DC85, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by slevesque, posted 02-04-2010 3:19 PM slevesque has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19818
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 99 of 150 (545673)
02-04-2010 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by New Cat's Eye
02-04-2010 11:00 AM


downy feathers first, then undifferentiated feathers, then flight feathers ...
Hi Catholic Scientist,

They put down feathers in coats because they ARE great for thermoregulation.

They also are the first feathers that grow on newly hatched birds, and it is very common that organism growth patterns follow evolutionary patterns of development.

http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/40/4/631

quote:
It is likely that feathers evolved from a conical shaped tubercle rather than a plate-like structure. Although the morphology of the presumably most primitive feather is unknown, minimal conditions for its production include the cellular capacity to synthesize feather proteins (={phi}-keratin) which provides the molecular phenotype, and a follicular mechanism for production and assembly of molecular and gross structure.

By comparison, the most primitive animals to possess feathers are the maniraptorian dinosaurs, Protarchaeopteryx and Caudipteryx (Ji et al., 1998). The feathers on these specimens are recognizable as symmetrical primaries and semiplumes on the body. The Yixian formations of Liaong province in NE China are probably not older than 120 MYA (Smith et al., 1995Go; B. Idleman, personal communication) and, hence, early Cretaceous (Lucus and Estep, 1998Go). Although perhaps chronologically more recent, Caudipteryx is phylogenetically closest to Archaeopteryx, but may not be completely avian (Padian, 1998Go). The Yixian dinosaurs were cursorial, bipedal, and not capable of flight.


Interesting reading. Also has some thoughts on how feathers evolved.

Another good reference is
http://people.eku.edu/ritchisong/feather_evolution.htm

Enjoy.


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


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-04-2010 11:00 AM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16093
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 100 of 150 (545699)
02-04-2010 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by slevesque
02-04-2010 3:51 PM


Re: Feathers as novel features
Yeah I have read some counter-quotes by Feduccia when searching a bit yesterday. I think it is fairly obvious thatwhat happened to him is the same that happened to Gould. He thought of a great alternative to the commonly accepted theory and started out in fanfare trying to promote it, with big claims etc. Of course, when some of those claims were picked up by creationists it hurt his reputation quite a bit, and to claim it back he stepped down a notch on his claims and even contradicted himself on some occasions, such as here. (which was an email answer to a question by a layman, I believe right ?)

In any case, he contradicts himself. It's normal with humans

I think what hurt his reputation was being wrong. How much attention do you think the average biologist pays to creationists?

In what way do you think he contradicts himself?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by slevesque, posted 02-04-2010 3:51 PM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by slevesque, posted 02-05-2010 4:00 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16093
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 101 of 150 (545701)
02-04-2010 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by slevesque
02-04-2010 3:56 PM


Did you read the interview with Feduccia I posted earlier ? He says that there are loads of fake fossils out there. Obviously, if they were easy to spot they wouldn't be 'out there'.

I didn't say it was easy, I said that paleontologists can do it. Tourists visiting China and looking for souvenirs mostly can't.

Or do you think only archaeoraptor was fake and all the others were legit ?

Can you name any other fake primitive bird from China that managed to temporarily fool a couple of paleontologists?

So far as I know, no primitive bird fossil that has got into the scientific literature has subsequently been exposed as a "Piltdown bird". If you know better, let me know.

And if this had happened, you would know about it, would you? Because creationists, who would have played absolutely no role in uncovering the hoax, and not one of whom could tell a real fossil from a fake fossil from a hole in the bleedin' ground, would never shut up about how this proves that all biologists are stupid and EVIL-UTION IS A LIE OMG!!!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by slevesque, posted 02-04-2010 3:56 PM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by pandion, posted 02-05-2010 12:37 AM Dr Adequate has responded
 Message 114 by slevesque, posted 02-05-2010 4:05 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16093
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 102 of 150 (545705)
02-04-2010 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by slevesque
02-04-2010 4:03 PM


But in the case of fossils, you have either dinosaurs with feathers, but aside from that are completely dinosaurs.

Oh, come, on paleontologists find dinosaurs with feathers and you just brush it off?

Suppose that they had not yet found any such thing? Wouldn't you be making a big deal out of it?

And birds with all the characteristics of birds ...

Archaeopteryx does not in fact have all the characteristics of modern birds.

---

The problem with this, as with every similar creationist attempt at shoehorning, is that the extremal members of the two groups thus artificially constructed are closer anatomically then they are to other members of "their own" groups.

A coelurosaur such as Compsognathus is much closer anatomically to Archaeopteryx than it is to another theropod dinosaur --- T. rex, for example. And Archaeopteryx is much closer anatomically to Compsognathus than it is to, for example, a sparrow (or any other living bird, for that matter).

Or to put it another way, if Archeopteryx is a bird, and Compsognathus is a dinosaur, then Archaeopteryx is a bird with almost completely dinosaurian features (since it's almost exactly the same as Compsognathus), and Compsognathus is a dinosaur with almost exclusively avian features (since it's almost exactly the same as Archaeopteryx).

Placing the division where you do therefore has nothing to do with anatomy and everything to do with the creationist need to draw a line somewhere. Anywhere.

No really 50/50 in between type. No in between lung structure, no in between femur structure, no in between balance structure, etc.

Perhaps you could elaborate on this.

* Lungs: the evidence shows that dinosaurs had the same sort of lungs as birds. Why should there be something "in between" two structures which are identical?

* Femurs: well, since you've decided that Archaeopteryx is a bird, and that coelurosaurs are not, could you explain to us what the anatomical difference is between the femurs of the two? If there isn't any, then my remarks about lungs apply.

* Balance structure: I don't know what you mean, please explain. And, again, will you please let us know if Archaeopteryx, which you deem a bird, really has a different "balance structure" from a coelurosaur.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by slevesque, posted 02-04-2010 4:03 PM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by caffeine, posted 02-05-2010 9:56 AM Dr Adequate has responded
 Message 116 by slevesque, posted 02-05-2010 4:22 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16093
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 103 of 150 (545717)
02-04-2010 11:47 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by slevesque
02-04-2010 3:40 PM


Re: Feathers as novel features
Ever seen baby ostriches covered with downy feathers ? Quite cute right, but now imagine it getting all wet. It will die of hypothermia within minutes if it's mother doesn't heat it up. For a species to be covered by such a structure for endothermy would be extremely maladaptive, to the point of being harmful.

So, the omniscient creator really screwed up by giving baby birds down, eh? Either that or he's just trying to kill as many cute little dicky-birds as possible.

Or, just possibly, you don't know much about birds.

You do not explain why the same dreadful fate does not befall the adult ostrich when she gets wet. Is there something in particular which makes wet down a poorer insulator than wet feathers? Or why either should be inferior to naked skin?

And of course, no dinosaurs are found with downy feathers. They are either found with 'dinofuzz' or with true feathers which have a central rachis, etc.

But see here.

In fact, the dinofuzz is found not only on therapods, but also on icthyosaurs, pterosaurs and ornithischian dinosaurs. In none of these cases are they related to feathers, and there is nothing to suggest then that this should be the case with therapods.

And, for some reason which you can't quite explain, the mere existence of therapods with feathers doesn't support a link between therapods and birds.

Convergent evolution can do marvels. Exactly the same sonar structure up down to the genome level in dolphins and bats, for example.

The value of your example is vitiated by being totally made up.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by slevesque, posted 02-04-2010 3:40 PM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by slevesque, posted 02-05-2010 4:35 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
pandion
Member (Idle past 1109 days)
Posts: 166
From: Houston
Joined: 04-06-2009


Message 104 of 150 (545727)
02-05-2010 12:37 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by Dr Adequate
02-04-2010 9:18 PM


Can you name any other fake primitive bird from China that managed to temporarily fool a couple of paleontologists?

My bet is that he can't name any fake, primitive bird from anywhere that fooled paleontologists. Archaeoraptor did fool a few amateurs, but the first qualified paleontologists who examined the fossil recognized it as a fake at first glance. They proved it with CT scans and concluded that the fossil was composed of 3 to 5 separate fossils.

One sad thing, the forward part was of a previously unknown primitive bird, while the hind part was from a previously unknown maniraptorian, theropod dinosaur.

In short, Archaeoraptor didn't fool any qualified paleontologist.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-04-2010 9:18 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-05-2010 12:56 AM pandion has not yet responded
 Message 119 by slevesque, posted 02-05-2010 4:43 PM pandion has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16093
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 105 of 150 (545730)
02-05-2010 12:56 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by pandion
02-05-2010 12:37 AM


Three Ring Czerkas
My bet is that he can't name any fake, primitive bird from anywhere that fooled paleontologists. Archaeoraptor did fool a few amateurs, but the first qualified paleontologists who examined the fossil recognized it as a fake at first glance. They proved it with CT scans and concluded that the fossil was composed of 3 to 5 separate fossils.

One sad thing, the forward part was of a previously unknown primitive bird, while the hind part was from a previously unknown maniraptorian, theropod dinosaur.

In short, Archaeoraptor didn't fool any qualified paleontologist.

You're quite right, my bad. The Czerkases weren't professional paleontologists, nor had they ever received any formal training in the subject. They were dinosaur artists.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by pandion, posted 02-05-2010 12:37 AM pandion has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
56
7
8910Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019