Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   evolution and the extinction of dinos
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 15 of 93 (607371)
03-03-2011 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Peter
03-03-2011 10:49 AM


Re: The fossil record
I didn't think Archaeopterix was considered an actual dino-bird transitional though ... not via any specific species in any case.
It's probably not ancestral to modern birds, if that's what you mean.
In the first place, what are the odds?
In the second place, there are maniraptors with uncinate processes, including, for example, Caudipteryx. But Archaeopteryx doesn't have them. But all modern birds do except the Anhimidae. (This is my own reasoning, I am neither a paleontologist nor an ornithologist. Add your own salt.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Peter, posted 03-03-2011 10:49 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Peter, posted 03-03-2011 12:04 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 17 of 93 (607385)
03-03-2011 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Peter
03-03-2011 12:04 PM


Re: The fossil record
So can a species still be transitional even if it doesn't have an ancestral relationship to another species?
This is exactly why I avoid using the word "transitional". Even if something was direct ancestor, we'd probably never actually know. And most of them probably aren't, because the odds aren't in our favor there.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Peter, posted 03-03-2011 12:04 PM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by fearandloathing, posted 03-03-2011 12:36 PM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 22 by Peter, posted 03-04-2011 5:43 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 54 of 93 (608378)
03-10-2011 2:46 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Robert Byers
03-10-2011 2:15 AM


The fauna below the k-t line or as this creationist sees it the flood line is exactly what one should expect to find.
And yet curiously creationists did not expect to find it until scientists found it for them.
Until scientists showed that some species had gone extinct, creationist dogma was that no species had ever gone extinct. Then when scientists convinced you guys that some species had gone extinct, you decided that this was "exactly" what you'd expect to find.
Let's see how "exact" this is. Without looking it up, which of the following would you expect to find going extinct at the KT boundary, and why?
* Trilobites
* Brontotheres
* Pterodactyls
* Ammonites
* Ceratopians
* Ichthyosaurs
You've got no idea, have you? You just have to wait 'til actual scientists (evolutionists every man jack of them) tell you which of those did go extinct at the KT boundary and then you can say "Yes, I expected exactly that".
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Robert Byers, posted 03-10-2011 2:15 AM Robert Byers has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 56 of 93 (608381)
03-10-2011 3:03 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Robert Byers
03-10-2011 2:56 AM


I explained in another post options for iridium as from sorting of volcanic outpourings during the last stages of the flood or as part of the origin of the upper layer laid after the flood.
Again I would point out that water can't just do whatever you want it to, even if you want it very very much. Saying "Flooddidit" does not actually constitute a description of a mechanism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Robert Byers, posted 03-10-2011 2:56 AM Robert Byers has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 66 of 93 (609034)
03-16-2011 4:49 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Robert Byers
03-16-2011 4:08 AM


No. The only way to have fossilization is from great mechanisms.
Evidence?
I sha'n't comment on the rest of your post, because I can't make head nor tail of it.
Where did you learn English?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Robert Byers, posted 03-16-2011 4:08 AM Robert Byers has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 93 of 93 (616039)
05-19-2011 2:56 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Peter
05-12-2011 7:14 AM


Re: Clean and Unclean Animals ...
Is the clean referring to the 'kosher' animals?
In a word, yes. The word used for "clean" in Genesis 7 is טָהוֹר --- the same word is used to describe ceremonial cleanliness of food, as in Deuteronomy 14:20: "But of all clean fowls ye may eat".
{Many of the recent messages have at least mentioned the words dinosaur(s) or dino(s), maintaining at least a trace of a connection to the topic theme. This little tangent, however, has no such connection. - Adminnemooseus}
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner and following note.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Peter, posted 05-12-2011 7:14 AM Peter has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024