|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: "Archaeopteryx; bird or reptile, or both?" | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4927 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Let's keep the loaded semantics out of the picture, shall we?
Homologies are by definition shared traits from common descent. So you cannot theorize about homologies not being shared traits. You can discuss similarities that are considered to stem from common ancestry. Not trying to be picky, but think the whole discussion can proceed better if we keep such terms out of the discussion. Otherwise, we really have to decide if similarities should be called homologies, homoplasies, or neither (which is of course what we are trying to do here, but just to make a point).
Moreover, for convergent evolution to take place similar selective pressures must be in evidence. That seems logical except that convergent DNA sequencing suggests otherwise. But it's an interesting point. If environmental pressures must be applied to create convergency, and we find examples of convergency that do not seem driven by environmental pressure, would that be evidence of a hidden environmental pressure such as an intelligent agent?
Why do birds show so many homologies with therapods when their lifestyles are so different? Good point except we need specifics, and I have a question, are not the homologies advantageous for both groups of species? Assuming they are, that they are due to natural selection, why could they not be an example of convergent evolution? Can a trait not be selected for, even when the 2 species have different lifestyles? You are assuming that the trait can only evolve independently from one set of circumstances, and that's just an assumption. Plus, what if it did not evolve from convergency from outside selective pressures, but from convergent DNA, or ID (an intelligent agent), or just by golly, the same trait worked for both and independently evolved. Common descent is not the only answer here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4927 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
I just posted a long reply, but did not realize this was on this thread still.
If you want to respond more, why don't you quote my post with your response following and put it over on the new thread so we keep each thread topic clear? Or not. Either way is good.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Andya Primanda Inactive Member |
Could something like Archaeopteryx be the ancestor of later dromaeosaurs? I mean, maybe the dino-bird people see the whole thing backwards, assuming that because birds are with us here today and velociraptors are not, then it is concluded that birds are derived from the classic dromaeosaurs (Deinonychus, Velociraptor etal.) Which we all know imply a large gap in the dromaeosaurid fossil record back to the Jurassic.
My hunch on this is primitive theropod/thecodont ---> pre-archaeopteryx (arboreal raptors, something like Microraptor gui) ---> Archaeopteryx ---> (dromaeosaurids) (modern birds) in which an Archaeopteryx-like ancestor gave rise to two groups, modern birds (perfecting adaptations for flight) and dromaeosaurids (entering another niche as swift predators) I know the dino-bird theory is more popular, but I still think the paleontologists need to look in the Jurassic for fossils earlier than Archy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5223 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
randman,
Response posted on correct forum as requested. Mark This message has been edited by mark24, 06-05-2005 12:48 PM There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
The convergent issue has it's own thread:
Is convergent evolution evidence against common descent? Do not persue it here. Thanks
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
JETZEN posted a new topic
this is a thread with the same general topic. Also see EvC Forum: Archaeopteryx and Dino-Bird Evolution
Message 1: is archaeopteryx a...... valid example of a transitional fossil? in a recent debate i was in. i was requested to provide a transitional fossil. and i used an archaeopteryx. my creationist apponent was still unreasonable and without a clue. This is normal. It's the problem with idee fixes. Also see Transitional Fossils Show Evolution in Process. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : added Edited by RAZD, : added comment 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) • • • |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JETZEN Junior Member (Idle past 5141 days) Posts: 10 Joined: |
thanks for answering my question....being that archaeopteryx has feathers and teeth i assumed that they would be a good transitional species between reptile and bird.
but unfortunatly my creationist apponet could'nt see it that way.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2323 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
JETZEN writes:
Of course, if creationists could be persuaded by evidence, there wouldn't be any creationists. Be prepared to see this alot.
but unfortunatly my creationist apponet could'nt see it that way.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4957 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
the biggest problem for evolutionists and Archaeopteryx is that it does not predate birds, because fossils of other birds have been found in rocks of the same period
if it was one of these so called 'transitional fossils' then it should have existed long before birds became a species, yes?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1282 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
if it was one of these so called 'transitional fossils' then it should have existed long before birds became a species, yes? No. You seem to think that the ToE calls for a straight line descent, with each previous species dying out as the next species comes along. This simply isn't the case. At one point in time in the past, there were reptiles. Eventually, some of them evolved into birds, but that process took millions of years. During that process, there was an extended period of time during which reptiles, birds and their transitional intermediates all co-existed. In essence, your argument is no different from the familiar, "How could we have evolved from apes if there are still apes around?" The only real perplexing thing is why you think you can make the same arguments over and over that have been refuted a thousand times and expect them to eventually convince anyone. Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4217 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
if it was one of these so called 'transitional fossils' then it should have existed long before birds became a species, yes? Much of your problem is your definition of transition. To you, it appears that organism A becomes organism B through direct transition A10 B0 to A5 B5 to A0 B10 Where in reality A10 B0 becomes a number of Ax B10-x some which lines continue, others become extinct. Archeopteryx is of the latter. Edited by bluescat48, : missing< There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2725 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Peg.
Peg writes: the biggest problem for evolutionists and Archaeopteryx is that it does not predate birds, because fossils of other birds have been found in rocks of the same period The biggest problem for you, Peg, is that this is not true. The Protoavis remains are not preserved well enough for anybody to state with any certainty what the creature actually was. -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JETZEN Junior Member (Idle past 5141 days) Posts: 10 Joined: |
Peg,
a transitional fossil of a extinct animal has nothing to do with existing or extinction, it is merely evidence of evolution. Edited by JETZEN, : added existing
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
the biggest problem for evolutionists and Archaeopteryx is that it does not predate birds, because fossils of other birds have been found in rocks of the same period if it was one of these so called 'transitional fossils' then it should have existed long before birds became a species, yes? I have said before that one of the strange paradoxes of creationism is that creationists are obsessed with biology but not remotely interested in it. This would be a case in point. Leaving aside your gross and contemptible ignorance of the fossil record, you just wrote the words: "birds became a species". This is the point at which you should hide your face in shame. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
rockondon Member (Idle past 4953 days) Posts: 40 Joined: |
quote:It has a jaw with reptillian teeth, absent beak, a long bony tail, a neck that attaches to skull from rear (like dinosaurs) instead of from below (like birds), a flat breastbone, stomach ribs, reptilian vertebrae, unfused wristbones (birds have fused ones), unfused ankle bones (ditto), sacrum occupies only 6 vertebrae (half the minimum for birds), and (my personal favorite) three bony claws jutting out from the middle of each wing. These are reptillian characteristics, not bird ones.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024